Sculpture head from the 9th century BC found in Israel. It can depict an Israelite king
Sculpture head Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
King Jehu, from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9th century BC
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
---
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A captive Jew on a Roman coin from 79 AD
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Some Israelites and other Semites during 2000 years
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Judaean prisoners being deported into exile to other parts of the Assyrian empire. Wall relief from the South-West Palace at Nineveh (modern-day Ninawa Governorate, Iraq), Mesopotamia. Neo-Assyrian period, 700-692 BCE. The British Museum, London
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A couple of entertaining pictures from a 5th century Synagogue in Israel
Jonah are devoured by not one but three fishes
A carpenter from the same synagogue
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
Noiicee! Never saw that coin before! Totally a Hebrew nose lol
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Hebrew nose
You mean Hittite nose don't you?
========================
quote: Research has found that this nose type is as common in the general population as it is among Jews in countries where this type of nose is most prevalent, such as in the Mediterranean region.
Helmreich, William B (1982) The Things They Say Behind Your Back: Stereotypes and the Myths Behind Them Transaction Publishers, pp. 36–37 Holden, Harold Miller (1950) Noses World Publishing Company, p. 69
"A considerable study has been made on the 'Jewish' nose. It has been found that this nose is far less prevalent among Jews than popularly supposed. Furthermore, it is most prevalent among Jews when it is also prevalent among the general population, as among Mediterranean or Bavarian people."
Silbiger, Steve (2000) The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People Longstreet Press, p. 13
"Sociologists have shown that the 'Jewish nose' is no more common to Jews than to Mediterranean people."
.
quote: א וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying: ב בֶּן-אָדָם, הוֹדַע אֶת-יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶת-תּוֹעֲבֹתֶיהָ. 'Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,
. . .
מה בַּת-אִמֵּךְ אַתְּ, Thou art thy mother's daughter, גֹּעֶלֶת אִישָׁהּ וּבָנֶיהָ that loatheth her husband and her children; וַאֲחוֹת אֲחוֹתֵךְ אַתְּ and thou art the sister of thy sisters, אֲשֶׁר גָּעֲלוּ אַנְשֵׁיהֶן וּבְנֵיהֶן who loathed their husbands and their children; אִמְּכֶן חִתִּית, וַאֲבִיכֶן אֱמֹרִי. your mother was a Hittite, and your father an Amorite.
Y*hhez*qe'el (Ezekiel) 16.1-2 & 45
. Note: 'son of man' simply means human. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
That beardless helmeted porter is obviously not a Lachish captive.
So why not wisely chose the three highest Lachish officials on their knees submitting to their conqueror and captor?
and other captives from Judah's second largest city Is there something needing a coverup? Like physical variety from south to north? Images in history banned from your Family Bible?
Meanwhile I've posted an honest wide variety of Levantine skin from cola brown/black to caramel to faded white, eg
and even offered possible proto-Israels of two complexions, they fly ssiyssiyth --see the panels @ upper right--.
polemicists only offer one aspect of the whole and try to pull a fast one like hiding the bigger picture in an attempt to myopically distort the reality.
You must do like Sennacherib did. Focus on the Lachish Big Shots, forget foreign corvee underlings.
Lachish men wear their nappy hair short That's how to ID these 7th c BCE Jews [expelled to Iraq to become Price(2009) and Moorjani(2011)'s sample w/>3% W Afr ancestry ?]
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Judaean prisoners being deported into exile to other parts of the Assyrian empire. Wall relief from the South-West Palace at Nineveh (modern-day Ninawa Governorate, Iraq), Mesopotamia. Neo-Assyrian period, 700-692 BCE. The British Museum, London
.
Why did you dishonestly crop the bearded nappy haired Hebrew drover? Your interest isn't the knowledge, it's hateful melanophobic propaganda.
NOTE: this Lachish portraiture is the oldest authenticated imagery of pre-Exile Jews.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Judaean prisoners being deported into exile to other parts of the Assyrian empire. Wall relief from the South-West Palace at Nineveh (modern-day Ninawa Governorate, Iraq), Mesopotamia. Neo-Assyrian period, 700-692 BCE. The British Museum, London
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
That beardless helmeted porter is obviously not a Lachish captive.
The man has a beard. I have only seen these figures described as Judeans or prisoners from Lachish
And there are also women and children here
But there are a lot of books and articles on it as I'm sure you know. Maybe you can find a text reference referring specifically to this
The Assyrians seem to have the much longer beards cut straight on the bottom
Also see the next post. These men with the ear flapped helmets or caps, they may be Lachish soldiers and the men with no head coverings and in the long gown type garments are regular Lachish non-military, same type people. Alternate theory, Assyrian booty collectors but they seem affiliated with these women and the wheeled carts
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
this website describes this as
The defenders — Hebrew soldiers — are positioned on one of the city wall’s towers, trying to ward off the Assyrians. A solider is throwing an arrow, while his companions are throwing stones and rocks. The surrounding environment is bombarded with fire torches and stones. From Nineveh (modern-day Mosul Governorate, Iraq), Room XXXVI of the southwest palace, panel 7. The British Museum, London.
Museum number 124906 Description Gypsum wall panel relief: showing an assault on Lachish. Siege engines lead way up artificial ramps; inside, men with ladles pour water to prevent them being set alight by torches thrown from walls. A procession of men and women stream out of town, ready for exile.
Images from the top of this post and the post before it. We see stone thrower here in the center between two other comrades defending the tower form the Assyrians. Below him from a different part of the same reliefs one of the men who carries the box-like object on his shoulders, previous post, women in front of him. They appear to have the same cap or helmet The flap over the ears is there and in it's lower portion a fringe, if not some kind of pattern of thin parallel lines However with the stone thrower at the tower, other comrades who appear to be defending the tower also have those other cone shaped hats like Assyrians do. Not sure what all this adds up to. There could be some overlap between the garb of Lachish and Assyrian military
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Tukuler
Nice work... archeotypery has once again been caught and exposed for being pseudo. Ish Geber already called him out in the other thread for his incorrect usage of an image, yet he posted it again in this thread as if nobody saw him get called out.
He only created this thread because he's triggered by the fact that I've been sharing info about how Jews were black.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: This sculpture head is found in Israel and is about 2800 years old. It does not show a black person.
There is no tangible evidence that ancient Jews in the Levant were black. They looked like other Levantine peoples. Their descendants exist in the area still today.
quote: This Monday, June 4, 2018 photo shows a detailed figurine of a king's head on display at the Israel Museum, dating to biblical times, and found last year near Israel's northern border with Lebanon, in Jerusalem. A palm-sized enigmatic sculpture of a king's head dating back nearly 3,000 years has set off a modern-day mystery caper as scholars try to figure out whose face it depicts. The 5-centimeter (2-inch) head is an exceedingly rare example of figurative art from the Holy Land during the 9th century BC, a period associated with biblical kings. (AP Photo/Ilan Ben Zion)
The 5-centimeter (2-inch) sculpture is an exceedingly rare example of figurative art from the Holy Land during the 9th century B.C. — a period associated with biblical kings. Exquisitely preserved but for a bit of missing beard, nothing quite like it has been found before.
While scholars are certain the stern bearded figure wearing a golden crown represents royalty, they are less sure which king it symbolizes, or which kingdom he may have ruled.
quote: In 922 B.C., the nation of Israel was torn into two nations, Israel to the north and Judah to the south. Israel was racked by internal tribal differences and, subsequently, became susceptible to frequent invasions.
quote:King Hazael? A detailed figurine of a king's head on display at the Israel Museum, dating to biblical times, and found near Israel's northern border with Lebanon, in Jerusalem.
“The guy kind of represents the generic way Semitic people are described,” she said.
Because Carbon-14 dating cannot give a more exact date for the statue’s creation other than sometime in the 9th century, the field of potential candidates is large. Yahalom-Mack posited it could be kings Ben Hadad or Hazael of Damascus, Ahab or Jehu of Israel, or Ithobaal of Tyre, all characters appearing in the biblical narrative.
quote:In one biblical story, a traitor to King David seeks refuge in the town. King David’s army besieges it and demands the traitor be given up. In response, the people of Abel Beth Maacah cut off the traitor’s head and toss it over the walls. Getting what they wanted, the Israelites end the siege.
[…]
The sculpture itself is only two inches in size. It’s well preserved and mostly intact. The figure has a beard and is wearing a crown. It’s considered a rare example of figurative art during that time period. Figurative art is defined as representational art derived from real objects or people. The hairstyle of the figure with a beard gives some clues to his ethnic identity.
The hair is pulled back in thick locks that cover the ears and is held in place by a striped headband. The art form is similar to how ancient Egyptian artists portrayed Semitic peoples of the Near East.
It’s still not known who the head depicted is and from what nationality they were from, though it’s likely a royal figure. The man portrayed was certainly an important person in his community.
But they have no clue what king it may have been or from which kingdom. The time period of the sculpture is from the period of biblical kings. After the death of David’s son, King Solomon, the Kingdom of Israel split into two entities with separate kingships, Israel in the north and Judah in the south.
Scholars have guessed at some contemporary names the sculpture could represent. They include biblical figures such as King Ben Hadad or Hazael of Damascus, Ethbaal of Tyre, and King Ahab or Jehu of Israel, whose capital was Samaria.
Knowing what king it might be would answer some questions. However, there are no known references or sources to check outside of the Bible narrative.
I don't need co-sign of my take on Lachish. Have studied Sennacherib's slabs for decades and was the first to post any part of them on the internet 23 years ago.
Its time you hied yourself to composing original analysis instead of often regurgitating what's already published somewhere that can be shown often enough to be weak quasi-evidence.
Anyway we've discussed identitiies of various entities on the slabs before but I guess it's best to repost here now and update as needed.
I'm in no hurry so take it away if you will.
Meanwhile more Lachish
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* And in my previous post (the portion of the post where I quote Ish Geber calling archeotypery out), you can also see that archeotypery referenced this DNA study in an attempt to prove that modern inhabitants of the Levant are the same as the ancients.
But archeotypery was playing on peoples' ignorance and was hoping that no one was familiar with the study or had actually read it before. Because the study clearly says the DNA examined from the "canaanites" was actually a mixture of DNA from people who had migrated from the caucusus.
In other words, archeotypery completely misrepresented the study, because he is pseudo.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is some more images from the Black obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Jehu, bows before Shalmaneser III. According to the text on Wiki This is "the only portrayal we have in ancient Near Eastern art of an Israelite or Judaean monarch". The source of the claim is said to be Cohen, Ada; Kangas, Steven E. (2010). Assyrian Reliefs from the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II: A Cultural Biography. UPNE. p. 127.
The obelisk can be seen in British Museum
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About the sculpture head, of course it is contested exactly who it depicts since it did not came with a name tag, but nothing rule out it is a king. And it is still not a "negroid" head
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This scene is described by the British Museum as depicting prisoners from Lachish
Note at top there are two pictures running together That is how it goes on the relief. I couldn't find a continuous picture of it but that is how it was on the actual relief, as one Also note that the upper right photo itself is often not seen whole. The museum displays that in separate sections. Look at the little girl in the front of the cart. Running right through her is actually a crack line that goes all the way across up and down but this photo was taken when they put to together. Now however it shown as two separate pieces. None of this however is important.
The man in the center part of the same much larger scene with fig and olive trees in the background is driving an ox. Similarly the man on the upper right is a man driving an ox and carrying a sack (same guy repeated larger at the bottom) Several of the figures are carrying sacks including the men on the upper left who also carry goblets of some sort. At the lower right women also carry sacks. The man at the top center carrying a box-like object has a beard that is hard to see but I showed it previously. He has one of those helmets or caps with ear flaps. Similarly the ox driver in the center has on of them also. The ox driver on the upper right is rare in these reliefs (same dude is shown again at the very bottom) He's rare due to the fact that he's carrying a sack. There are many other figures like him not carrying sacks and they have long gowns on. One Assyrian is at top middle with a spear . He has no sack or ox.
Anyway what is the point of this? The point is that all of these figures except the Assyrians seem to be in "pack your belongings and belongings and get out mode" This leads my to believe that the two ox carriers one with the cap and no beard and shaven maybe be the same ethnic type as the other ox driver with the beard but I'm not sure about it. My theory is that this group are people packing their bags and ox and carts forced to leave the city while the others, maybe they are being shown in some sort of religious mode and also some being tortured by the Assyrians, possibly a priest class. Or that this scene above is people already and outside of the city while in other scenes the other people are still inside the city and being confronted by the Assyrians.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About the article, it actually says that parts of ancient Levantine DNA lives on in modern Jews and Arabs. A certain mix is to be expected since the Levant has always been an area where many ancient cultures and peoples have met and interacted. The full article illustrates this in a graphic form. But some of the mixing took place already before and during the Bronze age, an age in which Judaism as we know it came to be. Which still means that DNA from that time lives on even in todays populations
But this thread is about depictions, not genetic studies. So stop spamming with a lot of stuff that do not belong in the thread.
I already know that some people always want to twist everything and try to prove that ancient Israelites were "negroids". Especially Tazarah. It seems he can not be interested in ancient cultures if he does not believe they were "negroid". He calls me "Nazi", but he seems to be a black-centric fanatic who spams the whole ES with his preconceived notions about ancient "black" peoples and other propaganda.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: About the sculpture head, of course it is contested exactly who it depicts since it did not came with a name tag, but nothing rule out it is a king. And it is still not a "negroid" head
According to scholars, this isn't even what you claim or try to imply it is. They have no idea if it was even an Israelite, or what kingdom he ruled, or if he even ruled one at all.
Nobody ever said that there wasn't caucasian people in the Levant. That's a strawman argument, because you're pseudo -- as multiple others have already pointed out. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: About the article, it actually says that parts of ancient Levantine DNA lives on in modern Jews and Arabs. A certain mix is to be expected since the Levant has always been an area where many ancient cultures and peoples have met and interacted. The full article illustrates this in a graphic form. But some of the mixing took place already before and during the Bronze age, an age in which Judaism as we know it came to be. Which still means that DNA from that time lives on even in todays populations
But this thread is about depictions, not genetic studies. So stop spamming with a lot of stuff that do not belong in the thread.
I already know that some people always want to twist everything and try to prove that ancient Israelites were "negroids". Especially Tazarah. It seems he can not be interested in ancient cultures if he does not believe they were "negroid". He calls me "Nazi", but he is a black-centric fanatic who spams the whole ES with his preconceived notions about ancient "black peoples".
You misrepresented that study, just like you're misrepresenting that caucasian "Israelite" head sculpture.
You can't use a DNA study that deals with mixed ancient populations as a way to claim modern inhabitants with some of that DNA are ancient Israelites.
All that study proves is that modern inhabitants of the Levant are likely descendants of ancient migrants from the caucusus who intermingled with the natives.
The Y-DNA of the majority of modern jewish people did not originate in the Levant, that is a genetic fact.
You are pseudo. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Some Israelites and other Semites during 2000 years
Your pics are small and low quality Upper left is a modern poorly done facsimile illustration of who are thought to be Hyksos circa 1900 BC. They cannot be proven to be "Israelites" or Hebrew speakers. Top right who researchers call either "Asiatics", "Syrians" or "Syro-Palestinians" Egyptian transliteration = Aamu Again, no evidence for being Israelites in particular. Semitic speakers ? That also may not be provable
I already made a thread about this, upper left a higher res version of yours
Unfortunately, there is no inscription on these tiles fixing the name of the peoples represented; we are forced to compare with the bas-reliefs of the temples or the paintings of the tombs to find a similar type and we are sometimes perplexed.
these tiles are at different museums and thus their identities have been guessed at sometimes differently. Upper left had been called "Shasu Bedouin", the bottom left a "Philistine", next to him, lower right a "Palestinian" All of these figures have some similarity in hairstyle and could all be the same ethnicity, thus any of these names could attributed to any one of them, it's guessing. I have never heard of any of them being called Israelites. One probably even couldn't say with confidence they are necessarily Levantine
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ Wow, even the lioness is calling out the blatant pseudoism. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
See? Unlike Sennacherib who indisputably depicts ancient Jews our melanophobe polemicist is forced to admit any Israelite identity of anyone on Shalmanessar's stone is questionable.
So why bring it on? It's weak quasi-evidence at best.
Prejudice bigotry bias and hate mainly inform our anti-black polemicist who still refuses to recognize much less accept the actual Lachish Jews.
Hatred of blacks prevents admission of Sennacherib's Lachish portraiture for what it is, the earliest authenticated imagery of Israelites. In this case of the tribes and Kingdom of Judah.
Hate hate hate. Shame shame shame.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The identification of Jehu has been debated,
.
Because all we have there is transporters of tribute. More often than not tribute bearers are nationals of the tribute offering nation. In this instance the bearers of Yehu's Kingdom of Israel tribute are attired no different than certain other bearers on the primary document. Why do Gilzani's and Yehu's bowing tribute presenters dress identically?
Why do the Yehu tribute bearers dress no different than those of Patina Turkey?
Do you see the doubt comes from the above internal primary document examination? No assumptions about race or colour being the right, correct, or approved one
But if you'd been following this for over three decades starting with Pritchard's Ancient Near East volumes and all the other ancient civ art references I've posted you'd already know why the academic doubt prevails over wishology.
If I err in anyway in presenting this monument please provide precisions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ Wow, even the lioness is calling out the blatant pseudoism.
look who's talking
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] See? Unlike Sennacherib who indisputably depicts ancient Jews our melanophobe polemicist is forced to admit any Israelite identity of anyone on Shalmanessar's stone is questionable.
you do the same thing, of all the numerous books and articles you have not produced any reference for your similar polemical-ish exclusions of those ear flap dudes as non-Lachishians.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
You have never had to correct or put into context any of the ancient images, murals, etc., that I've posted and shared. Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The study tells us that the DNA from the bronze age lives on in modern Jews and Arabs. As I said there are also intermixing with other peoples, but that took place already in the Bronze age, so when Judaism became a religion among certain Semites the mixing would already have taken place.
What is it about the concept "DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews" you do not understand??
Also the head is found in what is today Israel and it even look rather like many other representations of the Semites of that time. Compare it with for example the picture of Jehu on the Black Obelisk. At least it shows that not everyone in that part of the world was "negroid" in the 9th century BC, as Tazarah wants us to believe.
Back to the images, I will from now ignore Tazarahs black-centric stupid spam and babble.
Here is some later pictures of people in what is today Israel, from the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Jews in Jerusalem 1860
One of the earliest photographs of Jews praying at the Western Wall of Herod's Temple, 1870s.
Jews from Ottoman time
The funeral of a rabbi in Jerusalem, 1903
Samaritan, 1905
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
How anyone could mistake these people for caucasians is completely beyond me. Look at that nappy hair and those nappy beards. Caucasian people do not have hair like this... at all...
1. You completely ignored how studies on Y-DNA of modern jewish populations does not support the conclusion you reach via that DNA article.
2. That head sculpture is not an Israelite, scholars do not know who he was, what is race was, or if he even ruled anything at all. It's just a random head. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
You have never had to correct or put into context any of the ancient images, murals, etc., that I've posted and shared.
To the contrary there is no basis to claim those brick maker figures at Rekhmire are Israelites Ask Tukuler about it Those are Christian archeologists trying to project
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
The point is, I provide sources co-signed by actual scholars and professors with credentials in the relevant field(s). "Archeotypery/antalas" does not, and never does.
P.S., feel free to prove that those archaeologists are "christians". Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @archeotypery
1. You completely ignored how studies on Y-DNA of modern jewish populations does not support the conclusion you reach via that DNA article.
2. That head sculpture is not an Israelite, scholars do not know who he was, what is race was, or if he even ruled anything at all. It's just a random head.
If no one knows who the sculpted head is how can you know it is not an Israelite? That is only your guess.
The study I referred to said that DNA from the bronze age lives on in modern Jews and Arabs. I believe more in them than any random black-centric fanatics on the Internet. But now this thread is not about genetics but about ancient depictions. Do not distort the thread. Create your own thread about ancient DNA if you like.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: How anyone could mistake these people for caucasians is completely beyond me. Look at that nappy hair and those nappy beards. Caucasian people do not have hair like this... at all...
So in trying to figure out if this is some sort of curly hair or the particular afro type most Africans have, look at the Assyrian at left the bottom of his hair looks exactly the same as the Lachish hair so does that represent larger scale curls, curly hair or does it represent afro type hair in particular ?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@archeotypery
1. Rofl... "no one knows who/what it is so that means.. it's an israelite!!" -- archeotypery logic
2. Rofl, archeotypery does not know what Y-DNA is, or it's significance. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
The point is, I provide sources co-signed by actual scholars and professors with credentials in the relevant field(s). "Archeotypery/antalas" does not, and never does.
P.S., feel free to prove that those archaeologists are "christians".
They are part is what is called "biblical archaeology" that is not the the most typical type. It tends to be conducted by people who have a bias toward wanting to confirm what is written in a religious text, the bible (often are Christians although sometimes Jews)
Calling those figures "Israelite slaves" is a perfect example of what you like to call "pseudo"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
2. Rofl, archeotypery does not know what Y-DNA is, or it's significance. [/b] [/QB]
stop bluffing he knows more than you
half the stuff about DNA you learned by me thrashing you around in other threads, forcing you to look up stuff You still don't understand how to evaluate sample sizes
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
Biblical archaeology does not equal christian archaeologists.
That assertion is pseudo.
Who should people believe, you? Or them?
P.S., is this you originally arguing that J is a legitimate marker for Jews, only to then deny ever claiming this after I debunked you and showed that J did not even originate in the Levant, but came from the caucusus instead? Rofl
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] [b]@the lioness
Biblical archaeology does not equal christian archaeologists.
That assertion is pseudo.
Again you don't know anything about the field of "Biblical Archaeology" This is new to you and you are pretending again
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
They all have more qualifications than you could ever dream of having. Stop splitting hairs. If they were saying white people were Israelites you would not be complaining at all. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
P.S., is this you originally arguing that J is a legitimate marker for Jews, only to then deny ever claiming this after I debunked you and showed that J did not even originate in the Levant, but came from the caucusus instead? Rofl
This is why I should not respond to you because you are constantly lying about what I say If you look at J, researchers are not certain it came from but you are so polemical the first thing one of them says you agree with you roll with, it's called "confirmation bias" you do it constantly Additionally J doesn't have to be native to Israel it only has to be present at the time of the Israelites for them to have potentially carried it but it is not known what they carried, Could have been E or T also
Third you ignored this in the other thread >>
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Talk of 'real' or 'true' peoples whether they be Jews or any other civilization, nation, or ethnic group is spurious nonsense by polemicists with a certain line of propaganda to push.
====================
There is no "ancient Hebrew" DNA available. There is Levantine ancDNA from various eras and sites. None can be identified as "Hebrew". ancDNA doesn't speak any language.
DNA of any variety is no guarantee of Jewishness. For over 1500 years and in every Jewish ethnic community with a thousand years of continuity a Jew is defined as:
one born of a Jewish mother
one who converts to Judaism per halakha.
Imma (mother) Sarah was the first female convert just as father Abraham was the first male convert. They converted to 'proto-Judaism' (list item 2). She mothered the seed of Abraham.
All seed fulfill the list item 1 requirement. Their mothers are 'Jewish' because converted by father or else born of a Jewish womb themselves.
Rebecca mothered her cousin Isaac's seed.
Jacob's cousins Rachel and Leah along with their handmaid kin Bilhah and Zilpah mothered his seed.
Jacob's sons' seed is of nuclear family 'sisters' else converted southeast Levantines, Egyptians, foreigners nationalized as Egyptian whether of Sudan, northern Africa, or Arabian Plate antecedents.
Pedigree to Sarah is an impossibility as her female line does not go down to the Tribes. Nor can any Jew trace mothers back to Ribh*qah. Same for Rahhel, Le'ah, Bil*hah and Zil*pah too. Nonetheless these are the Mothers of Israel we remember in our prayer service and lamentations.
After the Three Patriarchs Israels quit in-family marriage. But remember even Grandfather Abraham had an Egyptian pilegesh. Yosef son of Ya`aqob/Yisra'el married an Egyptian. Right there at Israel's beginnings, even before the Exodus it's seen Israelites weren't biological purity obsessed Nazis.
Upon Exodus an entourage known as the `ereb rab joined the descendants of Jacob/Israel and they too are among the first members of `Am Yisra'el the Nation/Peoplehood of Israel. No holy scripture record was kept as to which post-Exodus 'Members of the Tribe' i.e., Israelites/Jews, come from this so-called "Mixed Multitude" lineage.
Moishe Rabbeynu himself is censured by his sister Miriam because "he did marry a Kushite". Torah knows no other wife than Qeturah of Midian and Nakh twins Midian with Kushan.
The ancient Israelites, whether tribal or of the Kingdoms of Judah or Israel, mated with every people they met and the Levant is nexus for three continents. The Rabbi's say one reason for our Exile is to spread 'the Jewish Idea' --a concept/book of/by R Meir Kahane (z"l)-- among the nations of the World.
Consequently all ethnic Jewish communities, and especially those outside Eress, are composed of a core of former Judaean citizenry who made righteous converts and took them on as spouses. The Rabbis admonish not to oppress the convert or throw conversion up in converts' faces. They say those questioning others' Jewish identity and obsess over it "stigmatize others with one's own blemish."
====================
What HaShem, the Eternal One of Israel, wants of Israelites is Tiyqqun `Olam, making planet Earth a better place to live and implementing solutions for social ills. That is our mission.
Israel was told haMashiahhwill come in his time. Either haMashiahh will come because we K*lal Yisra'el compel him due to adhering to Torah Law, its Talmudhic interpretation and rulings, and the halakhoth determined by local temporal rabbis. Else in his time because the world has sunk into its lowest common denominator.
In every generation there is one worthy to be haMashiahh. It's that our inadequacies prevent his announcement. Knowing human nature it'll take the eschatology before he comes.
Israel's spiritual concern is not salvation. "All Israel have a share in The World to Come."
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
We've been over this. You're playing dumb now. Proto-Semites had Haplogroup E, which logically means the Israelites would have had a subclade of E. Genetic fact.
J was NOT found in Levantine specimens during the neolithic transition, and J is not a subclade of E.
Genetecists say J is not afro-asiatic, and assimilated into afro-asiatic culture and adopted the customs.
This ain't rocket science, you just don't want to admit you are wrong.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
stop spamming the thread with all those graphics. This is not a DNA thread. You have already posted that about 20 times in other threads. I already addressed it over and over again. You are the most repetitious poster ever in Egyptsearch. It shows lack of confidence relying on that much graphics and overbearing thick headed repetition and constantly ignoring valid argument
message to self: stop replying to Tazarah Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] See? Unlike Sennacherib who indisputably depicts ancient Jews our melanophobe polemicist is forced to admit any Israelite identity of anyone on Shalmanessar's stone is questionable.
you do the same thing, of all the numerous books and articles you have not produced any reference for your similar polemical-ish exclusions of those ear flap dudes as non-Lachishians.
.
NO no no
I'd polemical if I ignored the porters as one recognizable element of the overall picture of conquest and deport including all involved.
Surely you don't imagine material goods spoils like copper ingots weren't part of a conqueror's looting, that soldiers weren't expecting pillaged loot as a bonus on top of salary?
=======================
Aw c'mon.
I present unbiasedly from all ends others present their narrow ethnocentric stuff only they suppress ignore or wish away the obvious diversity
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] See? Unlike Sennacherib who indisputably depicts ancient Jews our melanophobe polemicist is forced to admit any Israelite identity of anyone on Shalmanessar's stone is questionable.
you do the same thing, of all the numerous books and articles you have not produced any reference for your similar polemical-ish exclusions of those ear flap dudes as non-Lachishians.
.
I do something I strongly urge you to do more of.
I examine the primary document and draw my conclusions therefrom and unlike your approved sources don't see-but-don't-see certain phenotypes and facial profiles and accoutrements for other than what they are.
The sooner you do that the sooner you can speak from experienced authority. Universities don't grant honorary degrees as a joke or for nothing.
Most important and what ethnocentric polemicists and amateur forum debaters don't understand but really need to is Even opposing views can be valid when supported by solid evidence.
Once understood, discussion can replace debate.
In a discussion evryone's a winner. Debates demand winners and losers determined solely by popularity.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
You have never had to correct or put into context any of the ancient images, murals, etc., that I've posted and shared.
To the contrary there is no basis to claim those brick maker figures at Rekhmire are Israelites Ask Tukuler about it Those are Christian archeologists trying to project
.
Nah, don't ask me. Compare Rekhmire's date against Israelite dates.
It's not about personality. It's about what I base myself on.
The importance of Rekhmire's tribute procession actually brought by the tribute peoples themselves is weightier than these masons who are abused by various parties pushing myopic ethnocentric views.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Sometimes these debates about the eventual color and phenotype of ancient Israelites, Semites and Levantines turn into something like this. It seems some people are just hell bent on placing "negroids" not only in Africa but in the Levant and surrounding lands too. Some others go even further and wanting to place them in Europe, ancient America and nearly everywhere on Earth.
Obviously one or another black person would have sat his foot in the Levant, for example during Roman and Byzantine periods. There were always slaves and other foreigners present.
The picture depicts two workers at the building of Babels tower arguing about something, a representation of the splitting of languages and cultures the tower came to represent.
I can add that most other figures on the mosaics in this synagogue represent the lighter of the two
Maybe we just have to collect all pictures who can be said to represent ancient and old times Levantines, Semites or Jews and count how many look like Jews and other Levantines look today and how many can be regarded as "negroid". That combined with anthropological studies and DNA can maybe give us a hint.
It can also be noteworthy than in the areas (outside Africa) where those ancient negroids shall have lived today the majority population is not negroid. That must also be taken into consideration. All peoples did not suddenly change color at some arbitrary point in time.
I hope the thread can resume it´s subject about ancient and historical pictures of Israelites, Semites and Levantines.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
See there What's the first thing out the melanphobe polemicist's mouth
negroid
Anti-black raving can't bury less lone alter one fact presented in this thread as to Jewish identity of Sennacherib's Lachish captives versus the internal primary document evidence Shalmanessar's stone shows non-native reps bearing foreign tribute.
Who believes the people in row three are Egyptian? The same who believe Yehu's on the Black Obelisk. They believe (faith) they don't think (discipline).
For the above poster everything comes down to hatred toward Africa and black peoples.
We've looked at the docs with no mention of Africa or a black race stock or breed
For the race conscious we've presented the oldest known physical Jewish type citing Cassius Dio in Roman History 37.17.1 observing "... other men, who, although of a different race, have adopted the laws of the people." which explains why these centiuries later images look less like the oldest ones ie the Jews of Lachish Judah's 2nd largest city.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I am rather sure that at least some posters (Tazarah) would have celebrated the sculpture head if it had been what he always calls "negroid", then there would have been no doubts in his mind. But because it is not black he doubts it.
The only thing we for certain knows that it is found in what is today Israel and is dated to 9th century. We also know it looks like many other depections of Semites including Jehu on the Black obelisk.
I am also quite sure that some posters would have more easily acknowledged the Jehu figure on the obelisk if it had looked stereotypical "negroid".
I smell some agenda by certain posters.
I do indeed not hate Africa or it´s peoples, I just see it as disingenuous to try to place black people in all sorts of ancient environments (outside Africa) where they never where in any sort of majority, or in some places where they never had any presence at all (as those who try to place black African in precolumbian Americas). It is like Eurocentrism in blackface.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
After amerindians, we now have to prove israelites were not "black" either ...lol anyway I don't see the point of making this when we literally have the dna of people who lived in this area in ancient times :
Members on this site are mostly afro-americans that means mostly west african with some NW european ancestry ; they absolutely have nothing to do with the ancient levant. Moreover palestinians/lebanese often look quite similar to my people yet you do not see me claiming their civilization or history simply based on look.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
For those who are interested in beautiful art the Synagogue at Huqoq in Israel presents beautiful mosaics with interesting motifs from the Bible, but also other motifs.
From the story about Jonah
The fighting workers at Babels tower
A carpenter
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: After amerindians, we now have to prove israelites were not "black" either ...lol anyway I don't see the point of making this when we literally have the dna of people who lived in this area in ancient times :
Members on this site are mostly afro-americans that means mostly west african with some NW european ancestry ; they absolutely have nothing to do with the ancient levant. Moreover palestinians/lebanese often look quite similar to my people yet you do not see me claiming their civilization or history simply based on look.
I agree with you, the constant black painting is quite silly.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: stop spamming the thread with all those graphics. This is not a DNA thread. You have already posted that about 20 times in other threads. I already addressed it over and over again. You are the most repetitious poster ever in Egyptsearch. It shows lack of confidence relying on that much graphics and overbearing thick headed repetition and constantly ignoring valid argument
message to self: stop replying to Tazarah
Translation: you got caught lying once again about J, and how geneticists have openly admit that the paternal Y marker for the majority of modern jewish people DID NOT originate in the Levant... J is from the caucusus. J is not semitic, proto-semites had E.
You are just as delusional as archeotypery/antalas is, talking to himself. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* This is a photo of a Semite head marked "Hebrew" at the Museum of Egyptian Archeology, London.
"Terracotta head of Semite, marked 'Hebrew' by Petrie. From Memphis, Foreign Quarter, Egypt. Graeco-Roman Period. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London"
It's from the Greco-Roman period (332 BC -- 395 BC) of Kemet (Egypt) and as you can see, it's clearly the head of a "Negro" individual.
The hair is woolly and the common texture that we see among people of the "black" race, the skin complexion is dark brown, the nose is wide and the lips are full/fleshy.
The person who uploaded the photograph of the head from the Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in London is Dr. Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin
Tazarah be like : "modern egyptians are arabs !!! they are not the true egyptians who were black like me !!!"
also tazarah : "look at these semites during the greco-roman era, yes they were also black !!!"
I wonder how all those ethnicities suddenly became "white" XD
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
It's obvious you beige supremacist, displacement and mixture of the original people or their feature set change do to time and other factors.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
This seems to be same head
Same head, two photos. Different light and angle in a photo can make a lot of difference. Someone declared above based on the left picture that the head is "negroid", but a photo in another angle does not necessarily confirm it. Curly hair is not exclusive for so called "negroids". Have you never heard about a "Jewfro"
Terracotta head marked ‘Hebrew’ by Flinders Petrie, UC No.UC33278
The right picture is originally from Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
Some context:
quote: In 1886 Francis Galton commissioned Flinders Petrie to take photographs of different ‘racial types’ on monuments from Ancient Egypt. This was part of Galton’s research into human and racial difference as well as a lifelong friendship and influence between Galton and Petrie.
So from this one can also ask if the head is a Hebrew and how Flinders Petrie came to that conclusion. Maybe one should contact the museum.
It is interesting that in the 1800s portraits like these became a part of a discussion of race, and seemingly they still are, but now more on Internet fora than in the Academic world.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@Archeopteryx exactly this head doesn't even look black, they're just desesperate and try to find any ambiguous depiction to claim a whole population meanwhile like I said it's a waste of time since we already have the genetic results of these ancient people who were similar to modern levantines certainly not west african + NW euro like Tazarah XD
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
note: head 33278 is the official Petrie Museum catalog number but one site lists it as (UCL)188 Top two photos of it are in somewhat dim lighting, the third one to the right of the text is the official museum photo
I recommend people save this image and the faience tile image I posted earlier because certain of these photos can be hard to find (also the recent Juba II sculpture I posted in another thread AND the other Faience tiles in my recent thread in Egyptology, those are official museum photos) Save to hard drive
that doesn't make Lachish go away or vet Yehu is in any art anywhere.
All the melanophobes have are Greco-Roman era illos
Lachish is at the Jewish root before "... other men, who, although of a different race, have adopted the laws of the people." Cassius Dio in Roman History 37.17.1
Nothing but nothing can bury cover up or distract away from those two ancient bits of primary documentation.
The stance there were no ancient Jewish blacks in untenable and not supported by anything except modern Nazi-like pro-white bias seeking to usurp another peoplehood without whom there'd be no Western high culture or civilizaton.
Western Civ is the whites very clever ruse not to outright say White Civilization. This is directs all studies by western ie white controlled universities and western ie white trained scientists. Any and every people under the whites western ie white civ umbrella must wash out white less whites admit their civilization rests on a non-white caucasian foundation of non-white pillars on the ground and low floors.
Good luck haters keep avoiding Lachish like the plague it is to your melanophobic lying distorting selves.
As far as complexions from Mishnaic to Rishoniym eras why does
Talmudh explain Israel is in general the color of boxwood and the color of date honey and recommends black skinned or white skinned Jews marry a mate respectfully lighter or darker than themselves.
The Pirqe de Ribbi 'Eli`ezer say Shem was blessed black and beautiful
A French rabbi exaggeratingly write that Jews are like black plums.
Talmudic laws of leprosy lists white related complexions as leprous signs
Honesty and an agenda of accuracy and authenticity dictates the southeast Mediterranean lands people were dark with complexions lightening as one goes north.
The dishonest white supremist ethnocentric agenda denies what it hates the most though its plain obvious and evident right up in their faces.
That's why they ignore commenting on all ancient to medieval primary documents showing local Levantine black presences and failingly attempt to limit blackness to West Africa a bait and switch debate losers technique. Price(2009) and Moorjani(2011)'s Niger-Congo-Kordafanian linked genetics before the destruction and final exile of the Kingdom of Judah cannot be from contemporaneous West Africa as nothing in history intimates any mass migrations, freewill or forced, from West Africa to the Levant. Nor csn any wishology negate their scientific findings unbeholden to "No tiggers in my Family Bible"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There's no color on this so as for color Lachish relief do not inform It is not clear what the hair type is Some sort of curl I think avoidance of these Lachish figures as being ancient Judeans could be called curlyphobic for some that has "racial" implications
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Aw shut up and produce a a whole city full of nappy haired men with white complexions.
Silliness DISMISSED w/o further consideration.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
There's no color on this so as for color Lachish relief do not inform It is not clear what the hair type is Some sort of curl I think avoidance of these Lachish figures could be called curlyphobic
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Aw shut up and produce a a whole city full of nappy haired men with white complexions.
calling the uncertain hair "nappy" connoting afro-type hair is your polemic There are two cherry pickers, each prefers a different selection identity trips, that chosen nonsense
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thx for the confirmation that in the 3rd century of the Common Era "all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs" "... other men, who, although of a different race, have adopted the laws of the people."
Both translators say the same thing.
The originating race of Jews was supplemented by converts not of the originators' race.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Thx for the confirmation that in the 3rd century of the Common Era "all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs" "... other men, who, although of a different race, have adopted the laws of the people."
Both translators say the same thing.
The originating race of Jews was supplemented by converts not of the originators' race.
And you think this corresponds to Blumenbach?
And 2nd century Roman is an authority on whatever theory he had
stop it, even the Nazis were calling European Jews people of a different "race" "slavic etc"
You have nothing here but a Roman opinion that Jews are different from Romans
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
When the documents are beyond reproach use an old debate tactic that ignores the evidence and slanders its presenter.
Won't work on the intelligent readers who weigh the primary document more than taking the side of protected and favored melanophobic personalities like you, Ant... whatever his name is, the white worshipping make fun of blacks Berber too white subservient to be aMazigh and the senile extinct Arche... however you spell it black hater who thinks declaring he's not a melanophobe erases all his anti-black postings.
You're out of your mind if you don't see nappy hair on Lachish male heads represented no different than Kushi hair on other Assyrian monuments.
No polemic from me. Why don't you ever attack the actual polemicists who truly have but the one pole? Oh I see white and wannabe white people are fair and never ethnocentric like the benighted blacks.
I present Levantines of black brown and white colour. How's that a one pole presentation?
I recognize two complexions of ssiyssiyth wearing proto-Israels. How's that a single pole polemic?
I show Israels laid with any who'd lay with them. How's that a solo pole only argument?
BS like yours is what makes trying to get to brass tacks an impossible task -- you just post to bump the hit counter or assume provacative anti-black stances from clueless stupidities that just mask and bury materials worthy of citing for will-o-the-wisps of imaginative desperation.
Lachish remains a city full of nappy haired Jews and their nappy hair is what displeased every melanophobic writer since the 19th century.
And what's this debaters' dirty trick substituting Elamites for Lachish.
Happens everytime
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Aw shut up and produce a a whole city full of nappy haired men with white complexions.
calling the uncertain hair "nappy" connoting afro-type hair is your polemic There are two cherry pickers, each prefers a different selection identity trips, that chosen nonsense
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So that negro head IS labeled as a semite due to it's features (large nose, skin tone, hair texture).
Archeotypery/antalas is getting handled in his own thread.
P.S., notice how when he does not like the factual evidence being produced, he demands that the museum (the source) be challenged.
Yet he rarely posts any sources for any of his images. He just cherrypicks images and gives his own little personal pseudo commentary, instead of what the experts say.
And as we can all see... that has not been working out very well for him. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Figurine of a semitic slave from ancient Egypt, located in the Hecht Museum (Haifa, Israel). The figurine clearly depicts a "black" or "negro/negroid" individual.
This is becoming fruitless as nothing I present has been countered by any primary documented relics be they text or art.
the Lioness has stooped to labeling me polemic instead of disconfirming anything I've presented while totally ignoring pro-white polemicists not attempting to counter their 'argument' in the least. Her bias is thick as brick.
No problem. As Ukraine has proved whites stick together as a race and without calling each other "brother" or "sister". They so naturally back each other up while ignoring their fellow whites mistreating the black and black related peoples in their midst.
Proof Did the president or vice president of the United States censure Ukraine for its white only trains and buses in violation of UN regulations?
Not going that route of defending myself against strawmans and baseless ad hominem.
Attack me personally all the live long day. The facts I present remain Unsullied.
By all means continue supporting the white polemic that completely denies local Levantine blacks existed and were an element of ancient Israel.
Again, the southern kingdom of Judah was predominantly black per Lachish and the northern kingdom of Israel had lighter skinned folk of looser hair texture.
Geography dictates that reality as do art pieces by Egyptians showing tribute bringers almost uniformly lighter the further north they hail from except for the southern Aegean.
Rekhmire's Retjenu are mostly pale whites yet darker ones are also represented among the far north Retjenu.
The south-north dark-light cline has no absolutes anywhere along it, and it is very real.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Tukuler
I agree with everything you said 100%, especially concerning the nature of the two kingdoms of Israel.
And I agree that none have countered any of the info you have presented.
This thread was only made by archeotypery/antalas as an attempt to distract away from the posts I've been making about ancient Jews being black. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: It's obvious you beige supremacist, displacement and mixture of the original people or their feature set change do to time and other factors.
Exactly... but archeotypery/antalas is pseudo and likely referenced that article only because he has seen other people who have the same position as him reference it.
None of them actually understand what it is saying. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Your mission is as antiblack as an identity crisis Berber sufferer can get, you and this other guy both.
Striving for 'objectivity' one can support, not prove, Israels' ancient phenotype affinities only by non pre decided objective examination as to who they were.
Instead the conclusion is pre-judged before examining any of the trans-disciplinary supporting materials. Even the ancDNA data is mistrued by claiming the samples are all Israelites of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah when in fact mostly all the samples come from various localities and various 'ages' outside the ancient tribal Israel and Israel kingdoms' timelines.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: we now have to prove israelites were not "black" Members on this site are mostly afro-americans ...
I agree with you, the constant black painting is quite silly.
And your constant white painting is appallingly nauseous and hateful as is that guys hatred for and obsession with black baiting stereotypes.
How do whites stereotype their running dog 'berber' allies? 'berbers' re civilized ancient peoples in the white imagination Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Short and sweet on the genome tip
Yeah them two guys Moorjani^ and Price* demonstrate W Afr genomes in biblical Israelites.
Iraqi Jews 4.5% W Afr ancestry 93-137 generations ago 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups date of the mixture of 72 generations (∼2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation) Iraqi Jews —who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago— share the signal of African admixture.
.
=-=-=
Objectively, 'SenegalCongo' speaker genomes are also an ancient Hebrew sub-strata that population geneticists date to Israel's formative era and to Judea's final Roman destruction through the Cyrenaica incident precipitating movements west and south.
quote:Originally posted 09MAR2021 by Tukuler:
Here're some select extracts. cDe and Ry*O alleles data. Can't remember if the Fy*O data is from Cavalli-Sforza?
Glean whatever into your own insights. Like southern Sepharadiym already admixed with German Jews under their authority, further deliberately whitened their 'olive' skins by intermarriage even with unconverted whites. If female all generations from her are legally non-Jewish. How many white American Jews have such unknown ancestry. None would want the consequences if a fact like that became known at large.
. Don't neglect to use those anytime W Afr genetics and ancient Israel are doubted, denied, or dissed anywhere in the world wide web you see fit. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * Figurine of a semitic slave from ancient Egypt, located in the Hecht Museum (Haifa, Israel). The figurine clearly depicts a "black" or "negro/negroid" individual.
The person who took the photos and uploaded them is a non-black, israeli woman who goes by the name of Hanay:
Iraqi Jews 4.5% W Afr ancestry 93-137 generations ago 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups date of the mixture of 72 generations (∼2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation) Iraqi Jews —who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago— share the signal of African admixture.
.
=-=-=
Objectively, 'SenegalCongo' speaker genomes are also an ancient Hebrew sub-strata that population geneticists date to Israel's formative era and to Judea's final Roman destruction through the Cyrenaica incident precipitating movements west and south.
quote:Originally posted 09MAR2021 by Tukuler:
Here're some select extracts. cDe and Ry*O alleles data. Can't remember if the Fy*O data is from Cavalli-Sforza?
Glean whatever into your own insights. Like southern Sepharadiym already admixed with German Jews under their authority, further deliberately whitened their 'olive' skins by intermarriage even with unconverted whites. If female all generations from her are legally non-Jewish. How many white American Jews have such unknown ancestry. None would want the consequences if a fact like that became known at large.
. Don't neglect to use those anytime W Afr genetics and ancient Israel are doubted, denied, or dissed anywhere in the world wide web you see fit.
I don't see how that's supposed to back up your wishful thinkings ?? Modern North Africans are roughly 20-25% SSA yet do they look black to you ? 1/4 to 1/2 of their Mtdnas are typically west african yet do they look black ? So how is that surprising that a southern levantine population that interacted with egypt for millenias show some SSA signals ?
Again stop dreaming no levantine has ever looked "black" let alone being similar genetically to any SSA population.
Stop being in denial, we don't care about your ad hominems. The DNA results we have go from the Neolithic to the medieval era and from different places in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordania none of the samples show a particular affinity with SSA :
Stop this obsession with claiming every people you wish you were ! Be proud of who you are ffs
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Uh oh, once again his true colors and blatant racism are showing. Along with extreme cognitive dissonance.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * Figurine of a semitic slave from ancient Egypt, located in the Hecht Museum (Haifa, Israel). The figurine clearly depicts a "black" or "negro/negroid" individual.
P.S., modern egyptians are not the same people as ancient egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * I am not claiming that african americans are descendants of ancient Egyptians, but the ancient Egyptians were indeed black africans.
Ancient Hebrews/Israelites were always mistaken as being Egyptians.
Joseph (the son of Jacob) and all of his Israelite brothers/children/family were mistaken as being Egyptians (Genesis 50:8-11).
Moses was raised as an Egyptian, and also mistaken as being an Egyptian (Exodus 2:19).
Paul was mistaken as being an Egyptian (Acts 21:38)
* These are photos of ancient Egyptian King Tut's (Tutankhamun) royal throne chair that was found in his tomb. It depicts him and his wife.
* The Ancient History section of the BBC website confirms that this is in fact his throne.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Uh oh, once again his true colors and blatant racism are showing. Along with extreme cognitive dissonance.
Again you seem disconnected from reality, he has the same skin color and features as modern egyptians :
Will smith is an afro-american so he's mixed he's not representative of sub-saharan africa. Stop dreaming you have nothing to do with any ancient civilization in North Africa let alone the middle east.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
the Lioness has stooped to labeling me polemic instead of disconfirming anything I've presented while totally ignoring pro-white polemicists not attempting to counter their 'argument' in the least. Her bias is thick as brick.
Even Taz respects my gangster >>
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ Wow, even the lioness is calling out the blatant pseudoism.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
totally ignoring pro-white polemicists not attempting
false, and I'll say it again Archeopteryx seems to blatantly ignore curly haired examples entirely, whatever particular type it is
I also called him out on various inaccuracies, that Hyksos an Aamu in Egyptian art are not substantiated or Israelites or Semites They can't place a certain location origin for them beyond somewhere outside of Africa. I have also locked a couple of Archeopteryx and I also don't like some terms "Negroid" and "Blackcentric" thrown around by him an insensitive manner
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
The originating race of Jews was supplemented by converts not of the originators' race.
You're out of your mind if you don't see nappy hair
And you're not much better with your own religious racial originator theory
What exactly did Cassius Dio mean? Which ones was he talking about? Who was who or didn't he not indicate? This fits into some kind established Roman race paradigm? How many races did they name or did then not name races? Was any of this standardized?
You don't have answers for that you are just using it for polemics try to legitimize your own 21st century racial concept by using unclarified ancient Romans to try to validate it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@antalas
1. modern egyptians are mixed, you idiot. With greek, persian, african, etc. They are not the same people as the ancient egyptians. It's not surprising that you do not know this. King Tut's throne depiction looks nothing like any of the images you just posted.
2. PROVE that Will Smith is mixed you racist idiot.
3. Here are some "sub-saharan africans" who are all lighter than Will Smith, yet they are not mixed and have never had consensual or forced relations with any european populations.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@Tazarah
1. You literally have no evidence of this that's what you wish actually. The DNA results of ancient egyptians are similar to the modern ones :
2. Will smith is mixed like all afro-americans (but also because it's physically obvious, I live along west africans on a daily basis and I've never seen someone that looks like him) :
quote:Genome-wide ancestry estimates of African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry (Table 1). We find systematic differences across states in the US in mean ancestry proportions of self-reported African Americans (Figure 1 and Table S2). On average, the highest levels of African ancestry are found in African Americans living in or born in the South, especially South Carolina and Georgia (Figure 1Aand Table S3). We find lower proportions of African ancestry in the Northeast, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, and California. The amount of Native American ancestry estimated for African Americans also varies across states in the US. More than 5% of African Americans are estimated to carry at least 2% Native American ancestry genome-wide (Figures S1 and 1D). African Americans in the West and Southwest on average carry higher levels of Native American ancestry, a trend that is largely driven by individuals with less than 2% Native American ancestry (Figure 1B). With a lower threshold of 1% Native American ancestry, we estimate that about 22% of African Americans carry some Native American ancestry (Figure S2)."
3. The people your posted are san people who do not even make 1% of Sub-saharan africans (just by posting them, I know that you clearly don't know how most SSAs look like) and genetically west africans plot very far from them :
+ they acquired their light skin thanks to eurasian settlers (apparented to cushitic pastoralists) :
quote:Skin pigmentation is under strong directional selection for reduced melanin density in northern European and Asian populations. Conversely, dark pigmentation is thought to be under stabilizing selection in equatorial populations exposed to intense ultraviolet radiation. We high-throughput sequenced pigmentation genes in over 400 individuals from South Africa and demonstrate that a canonical skin pigmentation gene, SLC24A5, experienced recent adaptive evolution in the KhoeSan populations of far southern Africa. The functionally caustive allele lightens basal skin pigmentation by 4 melanin units, explaining 11.9% variance in pigmentation in these populations. Haplotype analysis and demographic models indicate that the allele was introduced into the KhoeSan only within the past 3,000 years likely by eastern African pastoralists. The most common haplotype is shared among the KhoeSan, eastern Africans and Europeans but has risen to a frequency of 25%, far greater than expected given initial gene flow. The SLC24A5 locus is a rare example of strong, ongoing adaptation in very recent human history.
********* 1.) Pseudo boy is using autosomal DNA to link modern egyptian populations to the ancient egyptians. Rofl.
Let's see what Cambridge University has to say on the topic:
"Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same groups of people who live Egypt today?
No. Throughout Egypt’s history it had traded and fought with people from other countries. From around 750 BC the Nubian rulers, often called ‘The Kushites’ controlled Kemet and became its Twenty-fifth Dynasty. During this time Kemet enjoyed a renaissance, or return to earlier culture, as indicated by the promotion of the cult of the god Amun and also copies of earlier statues that were made by officials and the rulers.
Later, the population was affected by the immigration of soldiers, traders and settlers from outside cultures, which included two Persian invasions in 525 BC and 343 BC; Macedonian Greeks who ruled Kemet from 332-30 BC; Romans, who took control of Kemet in 30 BC; and the Islamic settlement in AD 642. The Persians ruled Kemet from their own country. The Greek rulers, in contrast, lived in Kemet and adopted Egyptian culture and traditions; however, the language for administration was changed to Greek. The Romans, although absent rulers, had large numbers of their army in Kemet and were keen to promote Egyptian culture, albeit their own version of it. The last hieroglyphic inscription dates to AD 394, after this time Christianity, which had been present in Egypt from the first century AD, gradually became the dominant religion. Early Islamic rulers maintained cultural links with earlier Egypt, as seen by the minaret at the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, which is in the form of the famous lighthouse of Alexandria and which dated to the third century BC. The language was changed to Arabic at this time and the religion to Islam."
********** *********** *********** ***********
"Were the Ancient Egyptians Africans? What colour was their skin?
Yes. Egypt is in Africa and there are many cultural links to other African civilisations.
If we look at the skin colour and also facial features on representations of Egyptians, many are what we would consider today to be Black African. Skin colours on temple and wall reliefs show ranges between dark brown and black, which is typical of what we see today with regard to people of Black African descent or origin. Furthermore, Nubians, a group who are accepted universally as Black Africans are, like their neighbours from Kemet, shown on reliefs with both jet black and red-brown skin and can be distinguished as Nubians by their short wigs.
Many statues have lost their original skin colour. Sometimes colours were used by the Egyptians symbolically, so for example a statue of a god or royal person would painted gold to represent immortality.
If we leave colour aside for a moment, we can also find out a great deal from looking at the facial features shown on Egyptian statues. Here, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with people who were African. Faces were broad with high cheekbones and the jaws are typically strong. The noses are also broad and the lips are generally full and fleshy in appearance."
********* 2.) I need you to PROVE that Will Smith has european or caucasian admixture. Ready, set, go.
_________________________________
********* 3.) Imagine being so stupidly racist, that you seriously believe all black people have to look the same and have the same skin color. The study you posted says that the khoisan supposedly got this "light skin gene" from east africans -- i.e., not europeans or caucasian people. This does not help you at all and actually debunks your entire argument because according to your logic, all "negroes" or "sub-saharan africans" look the same and have the same skin color.
Thus, there isn't even a need for you to address point #2 of this post because you have just debunked yourself.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ save this on hardrive the upper left image is hard to find
^ this is listed in Wikipedia as Figurine from Egypt of Semitic slave
I don't see the item on there but these museums often don't always have every item they have on their website. I could also not find other sources information on this piece. Whoever said this is a slave how do they know that? How do they know the person is supposed to be Semitic I suspect they don't know this and researchers would probably call this more general something like an "Asiatic prisoner"
which which of these two men best resembles the statuette, the Negev Bedouin or Will Smith? Well we can't really see the nose and part of the lip appear to be scraped off the statuette, and the statuette doesn't appear to be too realistic to begin with, somewhat cartoonish, his torso is nearly the same width as his body. So the answer is he best resemblance is whichever one you feel more comfortable with, whichever one fits your narrative better
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
Fair statement, but Will Smith is only one of many examples of a so-called black person.
Also, modern arabs or modern middle easterners in general do not have the type of hair, or hair texture, that can be seen on the figurine. The hair resembles what we see on modern populations of so-called black people.
You can also see that before the nose was broken off, it was quite big and wide.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: do not have the type of hair, or hair texture, that can be seen on the figurine.
no texture of the hair can be seen on the statuette
The thing is cartoonish anyway.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
Modern people of the middle east do not have hair like that.
Stop making fun of it. Ish Geber is going to get you
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @The Lioness
Modern people of the middle east do not have hair like that.
the hair texture is not depicted on the statuette, just the color
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This is how the throne looks when not in dim lighting
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What marks the polemicist is doggedly pushing prejudiced propaganda regardless of anything.
What breeds polemicists? Self-esteem issues.
This is why Antalas is on an anti-black rave whose brain can't register all the local black Levantines in ancient art and text be they Shasu, Israel, Philistine/Palestanian, or of Canaan.
'white berbers' re civilized ancient peoples in the white imagination
Soldiers, logistics 'corvées', and Judaean women with their children, all transporting non-human spoils.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
You can see the shape of the hair of the statuette of the figurine is not like that of modern middle easterners.
Regarding the throne: yes. Or we can use the image from the BBC website. Clearly, black african people being depicted. Not modern people whonare mixed with arab/persian/greek/roman/african.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can see the shape of the hair of the statuette of the figurine is not like that of modern middle easterners.
there is no hair texture on the statuette, only color
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
If you say so. The terracotta hebrew head definitely had an undeniable "negro" hair texture though.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @the lioness
If you say so. The terracotta semite
why are you calling that head a Semite?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
Because that's what the person who took the photo of it in the museum said it was labeled as.
"Terracotta head of Semite, marked 'Hebrew' by Petrie. From Memphis, Foreign Quarter, Egypt. Graeco-Roman Period. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London"
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] @The Lioness
Because that's what the person who took the photo of it in the museum said it was labeled as.
yes if I point out Archeopteryx showed images that might not be Semites you applaud it You take everything at face value. If you like what is said you don't bother to check thing. If you don't then it's under scrutiny That is a double standard and most Semites are not even Hebrew speakers or Jewish Even the museum itself said the labeling by Petrie was dubious
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
Archeotypery has no sources to back up anything he says. He posts cherrypicked images and provides his own commentary.
The captions/descriptions I use are never my own words or opinions, I get them directly from the source.
Huge difference
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
----
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Archeotypery scholarship in a nutshell = post an image of a random "caucasian" head and imply it's an Israelite, even though scholars openly admit they have no idea who it is or where it's from.
And then deny/ignore all of the other evidence showing black Judaeans/Hebrews/Israelites because it hurts his feelings.
Lul
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Tazarahs line of reasoning: Everyone in antiquity was black, even if we can not prove it they were still black, because I want it.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
When did I say everyone in antiquity was black? Can you quote me saying that? Please quote me saying that. That's a strawman argument you created out of frustration. You're so flustered by people saying ancient Jews were black that you're willing to flat out lie and make a complete fool of yourself.
You created this thread out of frustration. People (specifically me) sharing information about ancient Jews being black really triggers you for some reason.
It feels so good to see several people (3 others, excluding myself) calling out your pseudo "scholarship".
Rofl
The funniest part is how you repeatedly claim it can't be proven when it's literally been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by not just myself, but Tukuler and others on this site as well.
You certainly are having a very difficult time coping with it
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites. Then you started to troll the thread with Black-centric propaganda. Create your own threads if you like.
Btw, neither you or Tukuler are any authorities on ancient Jews and Semites. How many articles in peer reviewed journals have you written about ancient Semites? How many articles have you written about the genetics and anthropology of these peoples?
You do not prove anything. When I want proof of something I rather listen to real experts than on your race fantasies.
The thought of ancient Jews being black "negroids" flies in the face of both common sense and science. As if the Jews were some sort of black enclave in a sea of other Levantine peoples who were not black. That is a silly fantasy based on wishful thinking.
Even facial reconstructions of ancient Levantines do not show a lot of negroid people, they show people who look like and are related to todays Levantine populations
But you of course believe that you know more than those who made these reconstructions?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites.
Would you agree that this depicts a Jew?
.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I do not disagree if it is confirmed in the ancient sources, so why not? But I would not agree that it necessarily depicts a black person. Curly hair is quite common in depictions of all sorts of Levantine, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples in antiquity. Aside from different hair styles and clothing those persons features are not much unlike the Assyrians on the same reliefs. So those reliefs do not prove that they were black. One must also remember that those reliefs are not photos, they are stylized and folllow certain artistic conventions.
In Egyptian art one can often see big differencies in how they portrait different peoples, not only hair and clothes but many times also facial feautres and skin color. In these reliefs differencies are mostly in clothing, head gear and hair style. So the reliefs do not prove that all, or most, Jews in those times were black (or "negroid" to use Tazarahs vocabulary).
But I do not claim to be an expert. Best ask some Israeli or other Levantine and Middle Eastern archaeologists and anthropologists. They are closer to much of the material in form of human remains, art and similar (even if these particular objects are in the British museum).
As I said to depict people with curly hair seems to have been common in several places These two have different skin color but rather similar hair style
Just take a peek on the faiyum mummy portraits. Also rather light skinned persons can have curly hair and beards
If he had walked down a street here people would not have said he was black (or the N-word), but rather they would have called him Arab or Middle Eastern or something similar.
The Faiyum portraits show many colors on the scale, but the Lachish reliefs are monochrome, so it is harder to deduce color.
My personal belief is that they were somewhere inbetween, not snow white like Scandinavians, but not as black as West Africans or Nilotes or Nubians.
Perhaps they were not far from this reconstruction, based on real skulls
People can be rather brown without being "negroid".
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Archeotypery
So you can't quote me saying that all semites of antiquity were black, correct? Funny how this is yet another lie that you cannot prove, and you then lie and accuse me of "trolling" your thread with propaganda when that's literally all you did in my post.
I made a post specifically dealing with how the Igbo people have been recognized as blood descendants of ancient Israelites by a sephardic jewish rabbinate court ruling, and you for some reason felt it necessary to spam that thread with your silly images of unverified caucasian "Israelites" and CGI images.
Get a life you hypocritical, pseudo racist clown.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* This painting from the 11th century is called "Three Chaldean soldiers with Hebrew captives", by Bristol Psalter, a greek painter.
*** It is important to note that this painting was created roughly 200 years before the european renaissance began, during which the europeans destroyed all existing artwork in order to replace it with false white images of themselves (iconoclasm).
The Chaldeans were the ancient civilization that Abraham came from.
The Chaldean soldiers are on the left and the Hebrew captives are on the right.
Notice how all of the people in this painting are depicted as "black" people with afros and/or woolly/nappy hair.
The source of this image is Cambridge University (UK).
quote:Originally posted by Archeotypery: My personal belief is that they were somewhere inbetween, not snow white like Scandinavians, but not as black as West Africans or Nilotes or Nubians.
Archeotypery's false psuedo opinion on the topic debunked by an actual piece of scholastic information that references a firsthand eyewiteness account dating back to the 7th century.
A firsthand eyewitness account written by ACTUAL ARABS themselves, in which they say that the Israelites could not be told apart from Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and NUBIANS (...black africans).
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
See kids, this is what happens when you don't read or know anything about REAL world history, and instead choose to base your conclusions on CGI images and unknown head sculptures.
Rofl
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Tazarah, how would you classify them
and also describe their hair?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
Those are Elamites, I have already posted archaeological sources and studies on skeletal remains saying that they were "negroid" people but you all kept making up excuses to reject the information.
If it were up to me, nobody would be classified as negroid, caucasoid, etc., but it's not up to me. Those are the terms that the scientists came up with so in order to avoid equivocation and confusion from detractors, those terms must be used to clarify the type of people being spoken of beyond any reasonable doubt.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Not at all interested in engaging with Tazarah, Antalas, or Archeopteryx in this thread, but I did want to respond to one of Tuk's statements.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Again, the southern kingdom of Judah was predominantly black per Lachish and the northern kingdom of Israel had lighter skinned folk of looser hair texture.
I wonder if we'll ever get aDNA from the Lachish crania Keita and other physical anthropologists have examined? Keita's suggestion was that there were people of Northeast African descent present in the Lachish population, and IIRC he attributed this to the region coming under Egyptian and Kushite control. Ancient DNA samples from those specific crania could test that hypothesis, or the one you propose in which the people of Judah already had a stronger African affinity than more northerly Levantines.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@BrandonP
I know you addressed Tukuler, but my personal opinion is: no, we will never get any DNA from those samples because they have likely already examined them and did not like what they found.
Those people have had access to all of those corpses for almost a century now, if not longer, and have released nothing. Because if they do, they will have to tell the truth due to the fact that their results will be subject to peer review and scrutinization from other entities who may not have the same agenda that they do.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tazarah, how would you classify them
and also describe their hair?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @The Lioness
If it were up to me, nobody would be classified as negroid, caucasoid, etc., but it's not up to me.
Nevertheless you just made a thread called
"Negroes" Are Native to Israel
Just on the basis of the appearance of these reliefs alone how would you describe the general appearance of the men above and also how would you describe their hair? don't run let's get an answer
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Those are Elamites, I have already posted archaeological sources and studies on skeletal remains saying that they were "negroid" people but you all kept making up excuses to reject the information.
I have done a lot of reading from various sources about this,
Britannica
"Ten Thousand Immortals, in Persian history, core troops in the Achaemenian army, so named because their number of 10,000 was immediately reestablished after every loss. Under the direct leadership of the hazarapat, or commander in chief, the Immortals, who formed the king’s personal bodyguard, consisted primarily of Persians but also included Medes and Elamites."
However there is no evidence that of these groups of the guard that these archers above are Elamites in particular. many sources do not identify them as Elamites in particular. They could also be Persians or of Medes .
.
ELAMITE KING https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=85766225 detail: from scene of the humiliation of Elamite Kings Nineveh Gypsum N Palace Ashurbanipal British Museum Created: 643-640 BCE
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Nevertheless you just made a thread called
"Negroes" Are Native to Israel
I try to be nice to you, then you say something stupid like this and try to make it seem like I'm somehow contradicting myself.
I LITERALLY put the word "negroes" in quotes in the title for obvious reasons explained in my previous response to you, and if you go into the thread you will see that 2 of the 3 sources in the OP clearly support the fact that their are "NEGROES" who are native to Israel, exactly how the title of the thread asserts. The sources LITERALLY use the word "negro" or "negroes".
ONCE AGAIN: As I said, if it were up to me, terms like "negro" would not be used but I'm not the one who came up with these terms. I'm simply referencing historical sources and information.
Stop asking stupid questions, you aren't looking for honest dialogue. You're trying to twist my words and use them against me because you are a fool. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @The Lioness
Those are Elamites, I have already posted archaeological sources and studies on skeletal remains saying that they were "negroid" people but you all kept making up excuses to reject the information.
If it were up to me, nobody would be classified as negroid, caucasoid, etc., but it's not up to me. Those are the terms that the scientists came up with so in order to avoid equivocation and confusion from detractors, those terms must be used to clarify the type of people being spoken of beyond any reasonable doubt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Nevertheless you just made a thread called
"Negroes" Are Native to Israel
I try to be nice to you, then you say something stupid like this and try to make it seem like I'm somehow contradicting myself.
I LITERALLY put the word "negroes" in quotes in the title for obvious reasons explained in my previous response to you, and if you go into the thread you will see that 2 of the 3 sources in the OP clearly support the fact that there are "NEGROES" who are native to Israel, exactly how the title of the thread asserts. The sources LITERALLY use the word "negro" or "negroes".
ONCE AGAIN: As I said, if it were up to me, terms like "negro" would not be used but I'm not the one who came up with these terms. I'm simply referencing historical sources and information.
Stop asking stupid questions, you aren't looking for honest dialogue. You're trying to twist my words and use them against me because you are a fool.
be careful, when I see contradictions I call them out
I have seen other posters do what you do. They claim that some term is invalid but then go and use the term as a tool in trying to argue something and they think that by putting the word in quotes they have no responsibility for choosing to use that term and the concept it represents
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
What part of "I use that term because that is the term that the sources use" do you not understand?
Should I just come up with my own term?
If I just say "black" instead, then people will say silly things like "oh well indian people can be black, black is not literal, black just means dark".
There is no contradiction in me quoting these sources word for word. You're just looking for something to complain about.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @The Lioness
What part of "I use that term because that is the term that the sources use" do you not understand?
Should I just come up with my own term?
If I just say "black" instead, then people will say silly things like "oh well indian people can be black, black is not literal, black just means dark".
There is no contradiction in me quoting these sources word for word. You're just looking for something to complain about.
I didn't mention "Negroid"
I'm asking you how would you describe how the men look in the above art and also how would you describe their hair
Solely looking at the art, not anything you read
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You're asking me to abandon factual information I've read and present my own opinion? That's called being pseudo. I'm going to remind you that you said this to me next time you start complaining
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
right here on the previous page you're making all such opinionated remarks about another piece
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: as you can see, it's clearly the head of a "Negro" individual.
The hair is woolly and the common texture that we see among people of the "black" race, the skin complexion is dark brown, the nose is wide and the lips are full/fleshy.
"as you can see"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites.
Would you agree that this depicts a Jew?
.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not disagree if it is confirmed in the ancient sources, so why not? But I would not agree that it necessarily depicts a black person. Curly hair is quite common in depictions of all sorts of Levantine, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples in antiquity.
But if you are showing "Ancient and historical pictures of Israelites and other Semites in the Levant" are you purposely leaving out whatever type of curly hair this is in your presentation?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites.
Would you agree that this depicts a Jew?
.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not disagree if it is confirmed in the ancient sources, so why not? But I would not agree that it necessarily depicts a black person. Curly hair is quite common in depictions of all sorts of Levantine, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples in antiquity.
But if you are showing "Ancient and historical pictures of Israelites and other Semites in the Levant" are you purposely leaving out whatever type of curly hair this is in your presentation?
I already adressed the reliefs and curly heads in a post above.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: right here on the previous page you're making all such opinionated remarks about another piece
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: as you can see, it's clearly the head of a "Negro" individual.
The hair is woolly and the common texture that we see among people of the "black" race, the skin complexion is dark brown, the nose is wide and the lips are full/fleshy.
"as you can see"
Because there were no historical sources or archaeological studies declaring what race the head was, therefore I drew my own conclusion.
I'm not going to draw my own conclusion if there are archaeological sources that already give an explanation, as is the case with the Elamites.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Archeotypery
Can you produce a photo of a "middle eastern" person with extremely tight/nappy curls on their head and on their beard like how we see in the relief depicting this Judean prisoner?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Let us once again see some pictures from synagogues in Israel itself
From Sippori synagogue, first half of fifth century
Samson Smiting the Philistines with the Jawbone of an Ass, c.280-300 CE , floormosaic, 214 x 141 cm, the synagogue of Khirbet Wadi Hamam, Lower Galilee, Israel,(photograph courtesy of Israel Museum, Jerusalem).
Also from Wadi Haman
In the Huqoq mosaics you can clearly see a difference between the majority of the figures which have relatively light skin and a couple of darker figures in the depiction of the Babel tower.
The majority of figures in the Huqoq mosaics are lighter skinned
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * This painting from the 11th century is called "Three Chaldean soldiers with Hebrew captives", by Bristol Psalter, a greek painter.
The Chaldeans were the ancient civilization that Abraham came from.
The Chaldean soldiers are on the left and the Hebrew captives are on the right.
Notice how all of the people in this painting are depicted as "black" people with afros and/or woolly/nappy hair.
The source of this image is Cambridge University (UK).
There are many images in the Bristol psalter, all are not so black
Davids flight from Absalom
David slays Goliath. Notice that Goliath is depicted even darker than david even if we know that the Philistines were related to South Europeans,
David is crowned king of Israel
The Bristol psalter seen in it´s entirety do not prove that ancient Israelites were Black.
Take a look at this facial reconstruction again. People can be brown without being "negroid" to use your own words
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @Archeotypery
Can you produce a photo of a "middle eastern" person with extremely tight/nappy curls on their head and on their beard like how we see in the relief depicting this Judean prisoner?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The hair is not necessarily "extremely tight" or "nappy" Show a photo of somebody with a beard like this that resembles balls somewhere between the size a of a marble or round grape
___________________________________________
I don't see that form here. Their beards have a finer bushy texture rather than separate round shapes like that
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
Are you saying "middle eastern" people have hair like that?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
@Tazarah
If this man cut his hair more even and let his beard grow thicker he would probably not deviate too much from the Lachish reliefs.
Also you must take into consideration artistic convention and stylization. The Lachish reliefs are not photos. Differences in hair and clothing made it easier to separate friend from foe in the pictures. Notice that many of the figures are rather stereotyped without much individual differences. And the faces (except differencies in hair style) are rather similar for both Assyrians and Jews. The Lachish reliefs are not a proof of Jews being black. You just see what you want to see.
Btw, have you ever tried to mail any Israelite archaeologists or anthropologists and ask how they think the ancient Jews looked like? They are close both to ancient art and ancient remains. If you were truly interested in ancient Jewish history instead of just spouting negrocentric propaganda, it would be a good way to find out more things about the peoples in ancient Israel and the Levant.
Or even better, travel to Israel, visit museums and Universities and ask about these things instead of making up a lot of fantasies.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If this man cut his hair more even and let his beard grow thicker he would probably not deviate too much from the Lachish reliefs.
Also you must take into consideration artistic convention and stylization. The Lachish reliefs are not photos. Differences in hair and clothing made it easier to separate friend from foe in the pictures. Notice that many of the figures are rather stereotyped without much individual differences. And the faces (except differencies in hair style) are rather similar for both Assyrians and Jews. The Lachish reliefs are not a proof of Jews being black. You just see what you want to see.
Btw, have you ever tried to mail any Israelite archaeologists or anthropologists and ask how they think the ancient Jews looked like? They are close both to ancient art and ancient remains. If you were truly interested in ancient Jewish history instead of just spouting negrocentric propaganda, it would be a good way to find out more things about the peoples in ancient Israel and the Levant.
Or even better, travel to Israel, visit museums and Universities and ask about these things instead of making up a lot of fantasies.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I've linked plenty of archaeological studies that say word for word the ancient people of the "middle east" were "negroid".
You deflect by claiming it's outdated.
Let me guess: Ptolemy, Socrates, Plato, etc., and anyone else from 100+ years ago are all "outdated" as well?
Rofl
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
@Tazarah
Btw, have you ever tried to mail any Israelite archaeologists or anthropologists and ask how they think the ancient Jews looked like? They are close both to ancient art and ancient remains. If you were truly interested in ancient Jewish history instead of just spouting propaganda, it would be a good way to find out more things about the peoples in ancient Israel and the Levant.
Or even better, travel to Israel, visit museums and Universities and ask about these things instead of making up a lot of fantasies.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Have you been to Israel?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: LOL!!!!!!!!!
What is it about the words "artistic conventions" and "stylization" you did not understand? Do you treat all ancient art as photos?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I've linked plenty of archaeological studies that say word for word the ancient people of the "middle east" were "negroid".
You deflect by claiming it's outdated.
Let me guess: Ptolemy, Socrates, Plato, etc., and anyone else from 100+ years ago are all "outdated" as well?
Rofl
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Painting from 945 AD Spain Depicts Christ and Angels as Black People (With Afros)
Keep in mind, this painting was created in the year 945 AD, before the european renaissance which began around 1300 AD. During the renaissance, europeans destroyed all black images and replaced them with their own.
From the book "Early Spanish Manuscript Illumination" by John Williams, page 54
"Moralia in Job of 945"
Christ in Majesty
Christ is shown enthroned between two Cherubs, within a great circular firmament suspended from the hands of two Seraphs.
^^^ looks like the people of Spain in 945 AD (over 1,000 years ago) were "fantasizing" about Christ being black...
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well, you deflected all facial reconstructions and you deflected the pictures from synagogues in Israel, so I think you even defleected more hands on proof.
Once again have you been in Israel, or had any conversations with Israeli archaeologists and anthropologists?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I've linked plenty of archaeological studies that say word for word the ancient people of the "middle east" were "negroid".
where's the link?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Can you produce a photo of a "middle eastern" person with extremely tight/nappy curls on their head and on their beard like how we see in the relief depicting this Judean prisoner?
but now he's saying:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: you must take into consideration artistic convention and stylization.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^^^ looks like the people of Spain in 945 AD (over 1,000 years ago) were "fantasizing" about Christ being black...
Well, they could hardly know how Christ looked like 900 years earlier.
If that picture proves Christ to be Black then maybe this picture proves Christ to be white.
There are no pictures made in Israel from his own time. Pictures made many centuries later (especially in foreign countries) do not prove how he looked.
The Israeli synagogue pictures are at least located in Israel and they were made for Jews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
LOL exactly...
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@The Lioness
* anthropological/archaeological source stating that ancient arabs (semites) were negroid:
"The Arabs: The Life Story of a People who Have Left Their Deep Impress on the World" by Bertram Thomas, page 355 (1937) Doubleday, Doran and Company, Incorporated
He also had nothing to say about this, as expected. All he does it post cherrypicked paintings and CGI photos. Not one historical document to substantiate a drop of what he says
********* ********* ********* *********
* A firsthand eyewitness account written by ACTUAL ARABS themselves, in which they say that the Israelites could not be told apart from Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and NUBIANS (...black africans).
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
Have you been in contact with Israelite archaeologists or anthropologists (who are active today)? Do the majority of them share your views that their ancestors were black ("negroids")?
Have you ever contacted the people who made the facial reconstructions and asked them why they did not made black faces?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
N/A
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
* Painting from 945 AD Spain Depicts Christ and Angels as Black People (With Afros)
The resolution of this phot is not good, blurry Nevertheless all angels here have short black hair of unknown type with halos behind
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^^^^ So now afros are unknown hair types now. Ok Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
They dug up ancient Semitic (Elamite) bones in the Levant... and they were negroid.
"The discovery, in the Parthian necropolises of Memnonium, of negro skulls, the frankly negroid type of the Elamites (fig. 31, 32, 36, 37 and 38; comp fig. 6, 7 and 8) reproduced on the bas-reliefs Assyrians, the enamels of the Achaemenid era unearthed from the excavations of Susa, confirm the information that classical historians provide on the Ethiopians of the Levant."
"L'Acropole de Suse : d'après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre, Volume 1" by Marcel Dieulafoy, page 27-28 (1890) Librairie Hachette
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I've linked plenty of archaeological studies that say word for word the ancient people of the "middle east" were "negroid".
where's the link?
You don't know what a study here would be
primary research taking about specimens, recording data and detailing methodology and are in scientific journals
A book with opinion not by the author of such studies
>> is NOT an archaeological study
further, you are showing something talking about "the original inhabits of Arabia"
and that is many thousands of years before the Israelites and is not the Levant There have been population transitions in Arabia
Very old studies often also have interpretations that may be obsolete due to later discovery and analyses
Old primary document records can be valuable, for instance medieval census records or some detailed account of an historical event
but if you are going to try to present and old study , first you would have to look in the footnotes, find out out the name of it
and then read it to see if it checks out as per what the aim of the study, the data and conclusion >> and what samples , which particular specimens they were looking at
this is primary research
and the middle east had a variety of peoples in it at different times so broad sweeping generalizations may not apply
And this thread is about Israelites not Elamites anyway
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
All I see are a bunch of laughable excuses much like @archeotypery spews.
I'll take the word of these scholars and archaeologists over random people on egypt search anyday. All you people do is lie and make excuses.
I guarantee if these books were saying the ancient Jews and Semites were caucasoid, nobody would be complaining and you would instead be trying to use them against me.
Rofl
If any source(s) I referenced were not primary, then the primary sources are referenced in them.
Feel free to go through them and disprove their methodology.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: He also had nothing to say about this, as expected. All he does it post cherrypicked paintings and CGI photos. Not one historical document to substantiate a drop of what he says
********* ********* ********* *********
* A firsthand eyewitness account written by ACTUAL ARABS themselves, in which they say that the Israelites could not be told apart from Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and NUBIANS (...black africans).
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^^^^^^ So now afros are unknown hair types now. Ok
don't be silly
^^ an angel depicted with short black hair of unknown type with large greenish halo behind it
That greenish color also looks suspect in that certain of these old manuscript pigments change color after hundreds of years (look it up) Nevertheless the hair is black not that greenish color
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Taz, you're getting emotional now and going into spam mode
That 19th century of the Copts is not proof of anything, it is merely anecdotal observation and they are describing people of "mixed descent"
Again, not scientific evidence
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ and of course you pick the one with the shortest or least visible amount of hair instead of either of the two next to Christ, or Christ himself.
Perfect example of how competely dishonest your disgusting trolling habit
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Taz, you're getting emotional now and going into spam mode
That 19th century of the Copts is not proof of anything, it is merely anecdotal observation and they are describing people of "mixed descent"
Again, not scientific evidence
You're going into pseudo mode now:
It references a 7th century firsthand eyewitness account written by muslim arabs, and it does not say that the nubians were mixed, or that the copts were mixed, or that the abyssinians were mixed, or that the Israelites were mixed -- it simply says the population was mixed because it contained those 4 different races of people. Hence the "mix". Not that those individual races were mixed.
Reading comprehension is key and you do not have it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Lyiness back to their usual pseudo and deceptive tactics.
Cherrypicked unclear sections of the painting and ignored the part of the painting that clearly depicts afro hair on the black angels, much like how archeotypery deflects from nappy haired Judeans
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
P.S. that's the first time I reposted anything in this thread, yet archeotypery has reposted the same thing multiple times and you've said nothing to him
Stop trying to play both sides of the field
It's almost as if you are a middle aged woman with no husband or family and therefore choose to troll egypt search all day as a way to relieve frustration
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ yes you are now cherry picking ad area in the picture where the resolution is least clear so people don't see the pattern, which is > angels have short hair and halos you are pointing to the where the hair is blended visually into the halo and you are pretending this is not two separate things I have seen posters due this sort of thing a lot They present poor resolution images and use it to make misleading conclusions
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
P.S. that's the first time I reposted anything in this thread, yet archeotypery has reposted the same thing multiple times and you've said nothing to him
Stop trying to play both sides of the field
It's almost as if you are a middle aged woman with no husband or family and therefore choose to troll egypt search all day as a way to relieve frustration
You are the grand king of over-size text images and repetition spam He was doing it only fraction of what you did and in reaction to you first doing it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ yes you are now cherry picking ad area in the picture where the resolution is least clear so people don't see the pattern, which is > angels have short hair and halos you are pointing to the where the hair is blended visually into the halo and you are pretending this is not two separate things I have seen posters due this sort of thing a lot They present poor resolution images and use it to make misleading conclusions
Oh so the halos are black now?
On the angels that do have halos, the halo covers both sides of the head as well as the top and are a perfect complete large circle.
Also, the angels that do have halos are humanoid and not cherubim, as the yellow angels are. The yellow angels beside Christ are cherubim. The others are not. The cherubim do not have halos, that is their hair and it's obvious because the two cherubim are wearing the same hairstyle and the hair points out behind their head.
And they clearly have afro hair.
You are a lying psuedo, just give it up already.
Go put your glasses on and take your pills
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You also just lied and said the eyewitness account I referenced said that the Israelites were mixed when it does not say that at all. Do us all a favor and stop being a lying pseudo
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: eyewitness account
The text says the people of Egypt were of mixed descent, the statement is ambiguous and I have studied this, these various groups are themselves of mixed descent. The reason it is saying each group in itself was of mixed descent is because otherwise there is not reason to state that you simply say "the rest of Egypt was comprised of the following groups" and then you list the groups
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
Why do you keep lying when the text is right there for everyone to read?
It clarifies that there were two different populations. The first paragraph says the first population was all greek. Then the second paragraph says the second population was called Qibt and that it was mixed because it had 4 different races of people: Copt, Abyssianian (Ethiopian), Nubian and Israelite.
It doesn't say each race of people were mixed. It would make no sense to say that they could not be distinguished from one another in that case. The writer is clearly saying that all of those 4 races looked identical.
Your poor reading comprehension has been exposed yet again so here come more excuses and deflection...
Page 73 (the next page) cites the info you are now demanding as an excuse to deflect.
The Israelites in the 7th century resembled Nubians and Ethiopians (black africans) and no amount of lies or gaslighting can change that fact,
Lyiness
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You asked for additional sources and now they've been presented your acting as if you didn't ask for them
Grow up
Get a life
Egypt search is full of your lies and pathetic attempts at trolling over the span of many years and I'm embarrassed for you
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You asked for additional sources and now they've been presented your asking as if you didn't ask for them
that's right. I want to see the source to determine the quality of the source and if what is said pertains to the time period and if the quote is an accurate quote
You are not at this level yet You don't check the quality of the source or the primary reference of it
You just read something in a book and think that's means it's true or free of error itself
And don't know that some sources may contradict one another
example, what I just posted in 1714, your contradictory sources
__________________________
That is retarded posting that over-size History of the Copts page again, total waste of space, it becomes spam at that point
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
You just read something in a book and think that's means it's true or free of error itself
Isn't that true for all written material? Unless you can speak or understand the language,aren't you subjected to personal bias in whatever the author,scholar writes?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You just read something in a book and think that's means it's true or free of error itself
Isn't that true for all written material? Unless you can speak or understand the language,aren't you subjected to personal bias in whatever the author,scholar writes?
yes but compared to the average person many people on Egyptsearch check sources more For instance the average person might not think to question an ancient writers accuracy when that writer is talking about an event hundreds of years before them rather than one that occurred during their lifetime Or they might not think to check if in some old 19th century book if there is an illustration of some native people, check to see if the illustrator was actually at the location themselves Or check the date on some very old art depicting the Buddha or Christ to see if the artist lived at the same time as the subject. Or if some writers is talking about some custom of some people, they might not think to check a couple of other writers to see if what they said agreed You still might have to take faith on believing in something particular but you have more knowledge from more sources and you might find that thinks that sounded certain is not certain and some book may be inaccurate. And who wrote the book? Are they professional? Did they hold and weird views on an issue that might be revealed elsewhere? The average person does not do that depth of research
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
I just gave you the page number that cites the information you demanded it's on the next page.
Now go try to come up with a new lie/excuse
You are no scholar, you are a deceptive troll
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You just read something in a book and think that's means it's true or free of error itself
Isn't that true for all written material? Unless you can speak or understand the language,aren't you subjected to personal bias in whatever the author,scholar writes?
He/she is a troll and only uses that excuse when he/she gets debunked and proven wrong.
According to him/her, books cannot be trusted. But at the same time they demand sources to prove claims being made.
Notice how he/she rarely posts any historical sources or documents of their own. He/she just lies and complains about everything else being posted and tries to twist the narrative
It's some sort of racist personality disorder + cognitive dissonance
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ race card
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^ race card
You going to "debunk" the source and prove it is invalid yet? You going to prove it was a mistranslation or not accurate, or whatever you claimed?
We're all waiting. Here is more information to help you
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Know that the land of Egypt, when the Mussulmans entered it, was full of Christians, but divided among them selves in two sects, both as to race and to religion. The one part was made up of men about the court and public affairs, all Greek, from among the soldiers of Constantinople, the seat of government of Rum ; their views, as well as their religion , were for all of them, Melkite ; and their number was above three hundred thousand, all Greeks. The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were called Qibt, and were of mixed descent ; among whom one could not distinguish Copt from Abyssinian, Nubian or Israelite ; and they were all Jacobites
A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church ~Al-Maqrizi (d. 1442)
It is widely known that al-Maqrīzī relied extensively on the work by the Coptic author Ibn al-ʿAmīd but whatever, that doesn't matter much
So Taz what are you saying here? That Jews and Egyptians in 15th century AD in Egypt all looked like Ethiopians at that time?
Let's establish what point you are trying to make
(By "Egyptians" here talking about the ones who were not of Greek background)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Once again, poor reading comprehension...
The book says:
"Know that the land of Egypt, when the Mussulmans entered it"
When did the mussulmans (muslims) enter Egypt? Was it in the 15th century?
Stop trying to deflect, I have made my position concerning the source very clear several times throughout the comments.
Go back and re-read if you need to.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Once again, poor reading comprehension...
The book says:
"Know that the land of Egypt, when the Mussulmans entered it"
When did the mussulmans (muslims) enter Egypt? Was it in the 15th century?
Stop trying to deflect, I have made my position concerning the source very clear several times throughout the comments.
Go back and re-read if you need to.
if you are referring to an eye witness account then it has to be attributed to a person who made an observation and when they made the observation Tis is basic scholarship, something you don't understand
But take your pick it doesn't matter, the Muslim conquest of Egypt begins 639 AD prior to that Egypt was ruled by the Assyrians then, Persians then Greeks, then Romans
So if you want to look at 639 AD Egypt is your point that Jews there at the time could not be distinguished from Ethiopians?
Again, what is your point in posting this page?
Or are you afraid to say what your point is?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
OK so the lioness is now playing dumb and somehow forgot the reason why the source was posted in the first place
The lioness somehow forgot why a source was referenced that says the Israelites could not be told apart from Nubians and Ethiopians in the 7th century
OK
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Archeopteryx what is your opinion if someone claimed That Jews in 7th century Egypt resembled Ethiopians?
Not only Ethiopians but Nubians as well. It's basically saying that the black african populations could not be told apart from one another, nor could the Israelites be told apart from the black african populations.
Israelites resembling Ethiopians and other black africans is not some new concept, it is well documented throughout history and even the Biblical scriptures.
"The Scripture Gazetteer: A Geographical, Historical, and Statistical Account... Volume 1" by William Fleming, page 479 (1837) Edinburgh Printing and Publishing Company
why do you keep posting big texts images when this is a pictures thread Is it because if you made a text thread you're worried no one will reply in it now that I am avoiding such threads?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You are the one who asked for additional sources and now you are mad because I am posting them?
You went into my Igbo being recognized as Israelites thread and started posting a whole bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with the topic, so shutup and stop crying
I'm 200% happy that you are not trolling my new thread, because now readers can go through each source one by one without reading your garbage nonsense
Now I know you are mentally ill, you think I'm sad because you and the other trolls aren't occupying my thread?
ROFL
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] You are the one who asked for additional sources and now you are mad because I am posting them?
just put the damn link we don't have to see the same over-size text, images over and over , don't you get it yet? especially since this is supposed to be a picture thread
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
How about you shutup and stop crying?
You and archeotypery both disrespected my Igbo thread by posting off topic garbage and nonsense.
You just might be the biggest hypocrite on this website
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what you call "off topic garbage and nonsense."
is actually called on-topic critical analysis. I brought out a lot of research in that thread and you learned things about DNA you didn't know
You are just not used to have have research level analysis with sources of your claims
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
More lies.
You got smashed on the J Y-DNA haplogroup and how it isn't afroasiatic and had nothing to do with ancient Levantine Semites
You started talking about how "black didn't mean black" when describing Jews in older books
You brought up latino Israelites
ETC.,
And archeotypery was spamming the thread with his pseudo caucasian "Israelite" images
Both of you are lying trolls and I don't care about either of your feelings
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ are you retarded posting this giant photo again?
Doing that shows lack of confidence. you are in your emotions again, acting out
the thread is supposed to be about historical pictures of Israelites
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Omg tazarah so emotional because he is doing what lioness and archeotypery did to his thread
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
What lioness and archeotypery did to my thread about Igbo people being recognized as Israelites:
You got smashed on the J Y-DNA haplogroup and how it isn't afroasiatic and had nothing to do with ancient Levantine Semites
You started talking about how "black didn't mean black" when describing Jews in older books
You brought up latino Israelites
ETC.,
And archeotypery was spamming the thread with his pseudo caucasian "Israelite" images
Both of you are lying trolls and I don't care about either of your feelings
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Omg tazarah so emotional because he is doing what lioness and archeotypery did to his thread
No, you did that to your own thread. You are the one who started the repetitious posting of the same images over and over again, like each one 20 times. You started that trend You are like the little kid that sticks their fingers in their ears not want to hears something, this is your version of doing that. And you expect people to get agree with anything you post. The problem is you don't know how to act
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Take responsibility for your actions
You trolled my thread with off topic nonsense as always
And archeotypery started posting images of caucasian people and bashing black people
Don't dish it if you can't take it, troll
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: What lioness and archeotypery did to my thread about Igbo people being recognized as Israelites:
You got smashed on the J Y-DNA haplogroup and how it isn't afroasiatic and had nothing to do with ancient Levantine Semites
You started talking about how "black didn't mean black" when describing Jews in older books
You brought up latino Israelites
ETC.,
And archeotypery was spamming the thread with his pseudo caucasian "Israelite" images
Both of you are lying trolls and I don't care about either of your feelings
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Take responsibility for your actions
You trolled my thread with off topic nonsense as always
That's BS it was on topic but you are lying now because there was too much heat and your Calcutta theory went down the tubes
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Whatever you say Lyiness. Nobody takes you or any of the lies/garbage you post seriously
You are notorious for trolling this website with BS and nonsense, stop trying to present yourself as a rational-minded human being. Everyone sees through you and hates your BS
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were called Qibt, and were of mixed descent ; among whom one could not distinguish Copt from Abyssinian, Nubian or Israelite ; and they were all Jacobites
A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church ~Al-Maqrizi (d. 1442)
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Whatever you say Lyiness. Nobody takes you or any of the lies/garbage you post seriously
You are notorious for trolling this website with BS and nonsense, stop trying to present yourself as a rational-minded human being. Everyone sees through you and hates your BS
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: That beardless helmeted porter is obviously not a Lachish captive.
So why not wisely chose the three highest Lachish officials on their knees submitting to their conqueror and captor?
and other captives from Judah's second largest city Is there something needing a coverup? Like physical variety from south to north? Images in history banned from your Family Bible?
Meanwhile I've posted an honest wide variety of Levantine skin from cola brown/black to caramel to faded white, eg
and even offered possible proto-Israels of two complexions, they fly ssiyssiyth --see the panels @ upper right--.
polemicists only offer one aspect of the whole and try to pull a fast one like hiding the bigger picture in an attempt to myopically distort the reality.
You must do like Sennacherib did. Focus on the Lachish Big Shots, forget foreign corvee underlings.
Lachish men wear their nappy hair short That's how to ID these 7th c BCE Jews [expelled to Iraq to become Price(2009) and Moorjani(2011)'s sample w/>3% W Afr ancestry ?]
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Judaean prisoners being deported into exile to other parts of the Assyrian empire. Wall relief from the South-West Palace at Nineveh (modern-day Ninawa Governorate, Iraq), Mesopotamia. Neo-Assyrian period, 700-692 BCE. The British Museum, London
.
Why did you dishonestly crop the bearded nappy haired Hebrew drover? Your interest isn't the knowledge, it's hateful melanophobic propaganda.
NOTE: this Lachish portraiture is the oldest authenticated imagery of pre-Exile Jews.
Bro what? These literally depict curly haired Judeans with hooked noses. What are you on about
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
..
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Proof that ancient images and murals get whitewashed or lightened to better reflect the modern inhabitants of the "middle east" instead of the true people
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Proof that ancient images and murals get whitewashed or lightened to better reflect the modern inhabitants of the "middle east" instead of the true people
Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Do you have any context around that photo? When is it taken? Where is it taken? Exactly what does it depict? How do you know that he is "white washing" anything?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Archeopteryx what is your opinion if someone claimed That Jews in 7th century Egypt resembled Ethiopians?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You can clearly see that the relevant portions of the image were erased so that it could be filled in with a different shade/color.
There's no good or logical reason why an ancient image like that should be getting completely repainted.
If it faded, then they normally just leave it alone.
But murals do not fade like that -- i.e., the entire image fading uniformly.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can clearly see that the relevant portions of the image were erased so that it could be filled in with a different shade/color.
There's no good or logical reason why an ancient image like that should be getting completely repainted.
If it faded, then they normally just leave it alone.
But murals do not fade like that -- i.e., the entire image fading uniformly.
Since you have no context I can not draw any conclusions about the picture. Maybe he is restoring an ancient picture? Maybe he makes a copy of an ancient picture? It is no way to tell unless we have more information.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yeah he's "restoring" it... that's what they call it. He's "restoring" all of the skin.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Black images in the background... but he's painting a white one... guess he's just "restoring" it eh?
He's just "restoring" them... he wouldn't dare paint over the black images and make them white, would he?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Black images in the background... but he's painting a white one... guess he's just "restoring" it eh?
Since you give no context around the pictures it is hard to know what is going on.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Proof that ancient images and murals get whitewashed or lightened to better reflect the modern inhabitants of the "middle east" instead of the true people
Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Do you have any context around that photo? When is it taken? Where is it taken? Exactly what does it depict? How do you know that he is "white washing" anything?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can clearly see that the relevant portions of the image were erased so that it could be filled in with a different shade/color.
There's no good or logical reason why an ancient image like that should be getting completely repainted.
If it faded, then they normally just leave it alone.
But murals do not fade like that -- i.e., the entire image fading uniformly.
Tazarah knows nothing about the photo. Although the resolution of the photo is not good the man appears to be an Egyptian. Tazarah calls him an Arab but he knows zero about the mans ancestry. Tazarah also knows nothing about restoration. For instance not all stick type implements are brushes, And when brushes are used they may not even be applying paint, it is sometimes cleaning agents because these paintings can have two thousand years of dirt from the air built up on them. The photo does not inform as to the exact procedure being done More importantly is more spam because it has nothing to do with the topic, taz diversions but I am forced to post the below to show what may be similar work being done Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Here's a book that gives some good info about iconoclasm and the act of whitewashing images.
Page 11
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
The image you just posted are not images that contain skin color, or any paint in general, for that matter. All that need to be restored in images like that are the lines.
There's no reason why all of the paint of a mural (like the one I posted) should be completely missing in a perfect manner, and need to be repainted entirely.
People aren't stupid, and you're a troll.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Whatever you say Lyiness. Nobody takes you or any of the lies/garbage you post seriously
You are notorious for trolling this website with BS and nonsense, stop trying to present yourself as a rational-minded human being. Everyone sees through you and hates your BS
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Here's a book that gives some good info about iconoclasm and the act of whitewashing images.
I am no expert on art from Constantinopel, but I know that also in my place wall paintings in churches were Whitewashed during certain periods. But here it does not mean that they where repainted or altered but they were totally covered with whitewash, ie a mixture of lime or chalk and water that is used for painting walls white.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Here's a book that gives some good info about iconoclasm and the act of whitewashing images.
I am no expert on art from Constantinopel, but I know that also in my place wall paintings in churches were Whitewashed during certain periods. But here it does not mean that they where repainted or altered but they were totally covered with whitewash, ie a mixture of lime or chalk and water that is used for painting walls white.
LOL 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Here's a book that gives some good info about iconoclasm and the act of whitewashing images.
I am no expert on art from Constantinopel, but I know that also in my place wall paintings in churches were Whitewashed during certain periods. But here it does not mean that they where repainted or altered but they were totally covered with whitewash, ie a mixture of lime or chalk and water that is used for painting walls white.
yes, Tazarah busted The "white wash" referred is also specified that it was on wall paintings, frescos, entirely covered over with paint
Analogous to most Muslims being against depicting the being of Allah The Christian Iconoclasts were against images depicting Christ and there were periods where they destroyed these images, many of which proliferated under the Byzantines. In the case of wall paintings they would simply paint over it "white wash"
Pavel Fedorovich Shtronda in Russian: Павел Федорович Штронда
more BS with this item
It's actually a modern day icon painter making a brand new original icon but it has become a lie-meme now on many websites in cropped version with hoax fabricated narrative that he's skin lightening some old icon
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
@Tazarah
Well, it says that some frescoes and paintings emerged from layers of whitewash.
In my place we would interpret it as they removed the layers of whitewash.
But maybe they work differently in Constantinopel
quote: NOUN Whitewash is a mixture of lime or chalk and water that is used for painting walls white.
2. VERB If a wall or building has been whitewashed, it has been painted white with whitewash.
quote: The Doom Painting of St Thomas’s Church in Salisbury is the largest and best preserved in the UK. Painted around 1470, it was covered with lime whitewash during the Reformation and not seen again until 1819.
This image from the book "Russian Icons" by Vladimir Ivanov (1972).
The book is full of original images of black prophets that predate modern images but there are also pages in the book where there are white/european looking versions next to the black ones.
Yet only the white/european looking ones ever get shown, and the black ones remain hidden or out of view of the public.
The point being made by Tazarah went completely over the lioness's head because the lioness is a pseudo liar trying to twist my words as well as the narrative.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * Black images in the background... but he's painting a white one... guess he's just "restoring" it eh?
He's just "restoring" them... he wouldn't dare paint over the black images and make them white, would he?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Whatever you say Lyiness. Nobody takes you or any of the lies/garbage you post seriously
You are notorious for trolling this website with BS and nonsense, stop trying to present yourself as a rational-minded human being. Everyone sees through you and hates your BS
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * Proof that ancient images and murals get whitewashed or lightened to better reflect the modern inhabitants of the "middle east" instead of the true people
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My, I wonder what this arabic gentleman is doing to this ancient painting
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Wall relief depicting men with braids playing musical instruments. They could be Hebrew/Israelite captives
PSALMS 137:3
"3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion."
********* ********* ********* ********* *********
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
1. Can you provide a link to a credible source instead of a meme?
2. Wow, so the assyrians (ancient middle eastern semites) had braids like modern black or "african" people?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
P.S. forgot to mention, here is a screenshot of the lioness cheering someone on and supporting them for using "sources older than mine" yet the lioness complains and makes up every excuse in the world when I reference books... lioness is a lying pseudo hypocrite
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You just read something in a book and think that's means it's true or free of error itself
Isn't that true for all written material? Unless you can speak or understand the language,aren't you subjected to personal bias in whatever the author,scholar writes?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Notice the top two figures Assyrian beard type, longer and cut straight across on the bottom
______________________________________
Lachish reliefs, British Museum (top and bottom figures above)
(center figure above) Musicians of the Assyrian army. Around 645 BC. From Nineveh, Ashurbanipal palace or North palace, room V1 / T1. Gypsum alabaster. AO 19908.
This is a detail of a large gypsum wall panel. The panel depicts the Assyrian attack on a fortress at the Egyptian city of Memphis in 667 BCE. Here the Nubian soldiers of King Taharqa (of the 25th Dynasty) are being led, as prisoners, by the Assyrian soldiers of Ashurbanipal II. The heads of the Nubian soldiers are clearly recognizable by their scalp hair and facial features, as well as the presence of tall leathers on the heads of some of them. They wear short kilts and are bare-footed. They are hand-cuffed and their legs have ankle shackles (legcuffs). These details contrast with the exquisitely carved Assyrian military costume. Neo-Assyrian Period, 645-635 BCE. Panel 17, Room M of the North Palace at Nineveh, Northern Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq. (The British Museum, London).
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So no source for the previous memes you posted ("assyrian" musicians)?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So the assyrians (ancient semites) had braids like "black african" people? That hairstyle is very unique and indicative of their phenotype.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Assyrians were known to do elaborate treatments on their beards and hair. Sometimes there is speculation about iron rod hair curlers or metal tongs
However looking at this Assyrian (but also considering it may not be that realistic) we notice that the round ball look of his beard and lower portion of his hair resemble that of the Judean captives in front of him The Assyrians may have used hair curling methods on king but it seems doubtful that they would take strait or wavy straight hair on a soldier and meticulously make dozens of artificial curls. Maybe those Assyrian musicians had some sort of fancy hair treatment but looking at this soldier he has this straight haired portion of his hair, with a slight wave. My guess on this is that he had curly hair and stretched out that portion of his hair and put a heated band or clamps of some sort and it made that portion straight
Frieze of Archers, circa 510 B.C. Palace of Darius the Great, Susa. Detail from the glazed brick, Louvre Museum, Paris, France.
^ Frieze of Archers there is nothing that proves theses are Elamites They could be Persians. Most of these figures have brown skin Susa (in Iran) was a principal city of the Elamite, Achaemenid Persian, and Parthian empires
Relief of a warrior at the ancient ruins of Persepolis, Iran.
The pressure of the headband appears to be enhancing a straight look at the upper part of his head it looks stretched by the headband
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
dupe delete
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
* Painting from 945 AD Spain Depicts Christ and Angels as Black People (With Afros)
=======
good lookin' Tazarah!
Honestly when I first glanced at that when originally posted I thought it was Abyssinian art except when scrutinizing I saw the script was not Ethiopic. But what part did Abyssinians play in Spain among Christians in a Muslim land (al-Andalus).
Here're a couple more Christian Ethiopian Magic Scrolls
Michael _________________________ Gabriel ----------- Elias _________________ CHRIST ___________________ Moses
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About Christ images from Spain. Here is one that is thought to be maybe the oldest found in that country. It is from he 4th century.
It is engraved on a glass plate dating back to the 4th century AD
Another mosaic from the 5th century synagogue at Huqoq. The mosaic is from the north aisle and depicts the spies of Moses carrying clusters of grapes to explore Canaan, as referenced in the Bible.
The remains of an Ancient synagogue with a mosaic floor north-west of the Sea of Galilee at the ruins of the town of Huqoq, dates to between the 4th and 6th centuries C.E.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About the book "Moralia in Job". The whole book is digitalized and can be read online
quote: The Digital Library Area of the BNE has recently digitized one of the most important and voluminous codices of the Hispanic Middle Ages, the Moralia in Job de San Gregorio (Mss/80), dated April 11, 945 in the disappeared monastery of Valeránica, in the current province of Burgos. The manuscript was copied and illuminated by Florencio, whose name appears in the colophon and in the labyrinth of fol. 3r, an outstanding artist of whom other manuscripts are preserved, such as the Bible of San Isidoro de León from 960. Later it went to the cathedral of Toledo, from where it came to the BNE in 1869.
Florencio who made the illustration has also made other illustrations like this one from the Bible of San Isidoro de Leon, depicting the adoration of the gold calf in the Old testament
The remains of an Ancient synagogue with a mosaic floor north-west of the Sea of Galilee at the ruins of the town of Huqoq, dates to between the 4th and 6th centuries C.E.
The mosaics from Huqoq are very vivid and sometimes drastic. There are both Biblical scenes and scenes which are more worldly. It´s depiction of the story of Jonah is highly dramatic with three fishes swallowing him.
Florencio who made the illustration has also made other illustrations like this one from the Bible of San Isidoro de Leon, depicting the adoration of the gold calf in the Old testament
Black Moses?
Visigothic-Mozarabic Bible of Leon or Bible Legionensis (960). 10th century. The miniaturists were Florentinus (Florencio) and calligrapher Sancho. Detail of The Adoration of the Gold Calf. Created at the Monastery of SS Peter and Paul Valeránica in Tordómar, Spain, Archive of the Museum of the Colegiata de San Isidoro, Leon (Castile and Leon, Spain).
Mozarabic art refers to art of Mozarabs (from musta'rab meaning “Arabized”), Iberian Christians living in Al-Andalus, the Muslim conquered territories in the period that comprises from the Arab invasion of the Iberian Peninsula (711) to the end of the 11th century, adopted some Arab customs without converting to Islam, preserving their religion and some ecclesiastical and judicial autonomy.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Biblia de San Isidoro de Leon, Biblioteca, Colegiata S. Isidoro, Leon, 960 Victoria de los israelíes sobre los filisteos en Carmello, fol. 119r Victory of the Israelites over the Philistines at Carmel
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
----
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thx 4 the beard precision.
I don't need co-sign of my take on Lachish. Have studied Sennacherib's slabs for decades and was the first to post any part of them on the internet 23 years ago.
Its time you hied yourself to composing original analysis instead of often regurgitating what's already published somewhere that can be shown often enough to be weak quasi-evidence.
Anyway we've discussed identitiies of various entities on the slabs before but I guess it's best to repost here now and update as needed.
I'm in no hurry so take it away if you will.
Meanwhile more Lachish
Hello, do you really think this is some sort of proof just because they have curly hair?
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You can clearly see that the relevant portions of the image were erased so that it could be filled in with a different shade/color.
There's no good or logical reason why an ancient image like that should be getting completely repainted.
If it faded, then they normally just leave it alone.
But murals do not fade like that -- i.e., the entire image fading uniformly.
Since you have no context I can not draw any conclusions about the picture. Maybe he is restoring an ancient picture? Maybe he makes a copy of an ancient picture? It is no way to tell unless we have more information.
Not only that, he's the same color as the painting! Lol!
Why would he be whitewashing it?? The whites paid him to whitewash it? xD
It's funny though, usually it's widely agreed that like the Roman, Etruscan and Greek and Egyptian depictions, men colored red was symbolism, but this most likely indigenous Egyptian man is the same tan red like color.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arabs lighten paintings too because modern egyptians need to make the ancient art resemble them
You can clearly see they erased all of the skin and began painting it in a lighter color
_________
* These are photos of ancient Egyptian King Tut's (Tutankhamun) royal throne chair that was found in his tomb. It depicts him and his wife.
* The Ancient History section of the BBC website confirms that this is in fact his throne.
Another picture of a probably Levantine Semite from the New Kingdom (tomb of Anen). He is clearly distinguishable from the black Nubian on the same painting
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Whuh? Cain't you read the hieroglyphs identifying the subject?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Another picture of a probably Levantine Semite ... clearly distinguishable from the black Nubians [sic] on the same painting
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here are a couple more pictures from synagogues in Israel
Mosaic of David playing his harp The ancient synagogue of Gaza was built in 508 AD during the Byzantine period and was discovered in 1965. It was located in the ancient port city of Gaza, then known as "Maiumas", currently the Rimal district of Gaza City. Location: The Good Samaritan Museum
Ancient mosaic in a synagogue in Tzippori, Israel, fifth century AD
Another picture from the ancient Synagogue of Tzippori, depicting a man carrying fish
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Whuh? Cain't you read the hieroglyphs identifying the subject?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Another picture of a probably Levantine Semite ... clearly distinguishable from the black Nubians [sic] on the same painting
Lmao...
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
firsthand historical account from 641 AD stating that Israelites could not be told apart from Nubians and Abyssinians (Ethiopians).
So what's up with all these whitewashed images? Euronuts
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
That quote mentions the Coptic population of Egypt of that time as being of mixed ancestry (whatever that means in this context). Maybe it's saying that their phenotypes varied from Levantine-like to Northeast African at the time? It could be implying a broad range rather than a singular appearance.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Whuh? Cain't you read the hieroglyphs identifying the subject?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Another picture of a probably Levantine Semite ... clearly distinguishable from the black Nubians [sic] on the same painting
_________^^^ this is interesting because in this Tomb of Anen (TT120) picture (below throne of Amenhotep III) the glyph says Shasu (bedouin) but looking like the type of figure in what in Book of Gates scenes have the glyph for Aamu ("Asiatic") .
.
yet we see the figure on the right not the left resembling in the Tomb of Anen but instead the one on the left. I have never heard of this type of figure, the one on the right called "Shasu" although "Shasu" can sometimes have a more generalized application .
We can see that instead of the head band going on top the hair these figures have the hair going up into it. These faience tile also from Rameses III are unidentified also One museum had called the one on the upper left a Shasu another museum called the one on the upper right also a Shasu but another museum called the figure on bottom left a "Philistine" and another next to him, lower right a "Palestinian" It's all guessing, none of this is reliable
The name's etymon may be Egyptian šꜣsw, which originally meant "those who move on foot". Levy, Adams, and Muniz report similar possibilities: an Egyptian word that means "to wander", and an alternative Semitic one with the meaning "to plunder".
History The earliest known reference to the Shasu occurs in a 15th-century BCE list of peoples in the Transjordan region. The name appears in a list of Egypt's enemies inscribed on column bases at the temple of Soleb built by Amenhotep III. Copied later in the 13th century BCE either by Seti I or by Ramesses II at Amarah-West, the list mentions six groups of Shasu: the Shasu of S'rr, the Shasu of Rbn, the Shasu of Sm't, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, the Shasu of Pysps
Shasu of Yhw
Two Egyptian texts, one dated to the period of Amenhotep III (14th century BCE), the other to the age of Ramesses II (13th century BCE), refer to tꜣ šꜣśw yhwꜣw,[6] i.e. "Yahu in the land of the Šosū-nomads", in which yhwꜣw (also rendered as yhwꜣ or yhw) or Yahu, is a toponym.
Regarding the name yhwꜣw, Michael Astour observed that the "hieroglyphic rendering corresponds very precisely to the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, and antedates the hitherto oldest occurrence of that divine name – on the Moabite Stone – by over five hundred years."[7] K. Van Der Toorn concludes: "By the 14th century BC, before the cult of Yahweh had reached Israel, groups of Edomites and Midianites worshipped Yahweh as their god."[8]
Donald B. Redford has argued that the earliest Israelites, semi-nomadic highlanders in central Canaan mentioned on the Merneptah Stele at the end of the 13th century BCE, are to be identified as a Shasu enclave. Since later Biblical tradition portrays Yahweh "coming forth from Seʿir",[9] the Shasu, originally from Moab and northern Edom/Seʿir, went on to form one major element in the amalgam that would constitute the "Israel" which later established the Kingdom of Israel.[10] Per his own analysis of the el-Amarna letters, Anson Rainey concluded that the description of the Shasu best fits that of the early Israelites.[11] If this identification is correct, these Israelites/Shasu would have settled in the uplands in small villages with buildings similar to contemporary Canaanite structures towards the end of the 13th century BCE.[12]
Objections exist to this proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu, given that the group in the Merneptah reliefs identified with the Israelites are not described or depicted as Shasu (see Merneptah Stele § Karnak reliefs). The Shasu are usually depicted hieroglyphically with a determinative indicating a land, not a people;[13] the most frequent designation for the "foes of Shasu" is the hill-country determinative.[14] Thus they are differentiated from the Canaanites, who are defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenoam; and from Israel, which is determined as a people, though not necessarily as a socio-ethnic group.[15][16] Scholars point out that Egyptian scribes tended to bundle up "rather disparate groups of people within a single artificially unifying rubric."[17][18]
Frank J. Yurco and Michael G. Hasel would distinguish the Shasu in Merneptah's Karnak reliefs from the people of Israel since they wear different clothing and hairstyles, and are determined differently by Egyptian scribes.[19] Lawrence Stager also objected to identifying Merneptah's Shasu with Israelites, since the Shasu are shown dressed differently from the Israelites, who are dressed and hairstyled like the Canaanites.[15][20]
The usefulness of the determinatives has been called into question, though, as in Egyptian writings, including the Merneptah Stele, determinatives are used arbitrarily.[21] Moreover, the hill-country determinative is not always used for Shasu, as is the case in the "Shasu of Yhw" name rings from Soleb and Amarah-West.[citation needed] Gösta Werner Ahlström countered Stager's objection by arguing that the contrasting depictions are because the Shasu were the nomads, while the Israelites were sedentary, and added: "The Shasu that later settled in the hills became known as Israelites because they settled in the territory of Israel".
wikipedia has this captioned " Egyptians beating Shasu spies (detail from the Battle of Kadesh wall-carving)" but I'm not sure if glyphs say Shasu above can be coordinated with the figures below
______________________________________________
Prisoners, relief at Medinet Habu, temple of Ramesses III
and comparing second to last figure, seems similar in hairstyle to "" Egyptians beating Shasu spies", the relief photo before it
More unidentified people perhaps related
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
That quote mentions the Coptic population of Egypt of that time as being of mixed ancestry (whatever that means in this context). Maybe it's saying that their phenotypes varied from Levantine-like to Northeast African at the time? It could be implying a broad range rather than a singular appearance.
Nope, it's saying that the population called Qibt was mixed, and this was because it had Copts, Nubians, Israelites and Abyssinians (Ethiopians). And they all looked the same and could not be told apart from one another
The population itself was mixed, much like how america today is mixed (has a number of different races)
It's not saying that any of the specific or particular races within the population was mixed
All the euronuts have are "image reconstructions", they will never be able to provide a scholastic source to support their fantasy about ancient Israelites looking "caucasian", like how I provide a plethora of evidence supporting the fact that they were "negroid" and resembled black african populations.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Here is another scholastic source attesting to the same fact -- that ancient Israelites were known to be recorded as resembling ethiopians/cushites (black africans)
This author acknowledges the fact that modern jewish people are white, but unequivocally states that ancient writers described ancient Israelites as resembling black africans
The Scripture Gazetteer: A Geographical, Historical, and Statistical Account... Volume 1" by William Fleming, page 479 (1837) Edinburgh Printing and Publishing Company
Disengenious and after all these years you know better, so why pen garbage like
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the glyph says Shasu (bedouin) but looking like the type of figure in what in Book of Gates scenes have the glyph for Aamu ("Asiatic")
.
when you good and darn well know Shasu are Aamw same as Palestinians are Levantines same as a subset is a member of its superset.
You also know the population isn't monotypical plus you know discrepancies between the under throne Nine Bows art versus other depictions. SOmetimes accurate representatives appear and generic fill ins are used at other times.
Yet and still it's good to see you using your own mind to analyze things instead of merely reguritating the Academe like gospel.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Museum's are not infallible entities and disagreement between authorities in any given field does not amount to "It's all guessing, none of this is reliable". Guesswork applies to a totally untrained ignoramus' opinion.
I take it all know our word Palestine comes from Philistine (Pelesti). 'Immigrant' Philistines were Canaanite Shasus' adjacent northern neighbors, both at the very south Levant bordering the Sea, the Sinai, and the Jordan.
As far as the art's clothing and accoutrements detail allows
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Here is another scholastic source attesting to the same fact -- that ancient Israelites were known to be recorded as resembling ethiopians/cushites (black africans)
This author acknowledges the fact that modern jewish people are white, but unequivocally states that ancient writers described ancient Israelites as resembling black africans
The Scripture Gazetteer: A Geographical, Historical, and Statistical Account... Volume 1" by William Fleming, page 479 (1837) Edinburgh Printing and Publishing Company
That same source quotes Tacticus saying the Jews were Assyrians, that’s not black LOL.
all that source says is Israelites were taken captives by Egyptians as Nubians were also and others.
And you never could explain ancient depictions of clearly Caucasian Egyptians and Israelites.
Like how ancient Egyptian women were depicted white, and the men red which is an art style the Etruscans and Romans did also.
Keep posting sources that debunk you projecting your triggeredness.
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
firsthand historical account from 641 AD stating that Israelites could not be told apart from Nubians and Abyssinians (Ethiopians).
So what's up with all these whitewashed images? Euronuts
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
Same old source that says Israelites looked like Copts.
Notice it’s saying they all looked similar to Copts.
Coptic people are the same people you triggered afronuts say are white invaders LOL
Nubians by that time never looked West African.
Also no ancient Egyptian mummy has a negroid skull or “‘nappy” hair.
These are facts you never could explain same with the entire Lipstickalley, Afrocentrics run from them it’s that easy. Bam!
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites.
Would you agree that this depicts a Jew?
.
WTF LOOK AT THE NOSE LOL. I LITERALLY DEBUNKED THIS NONSENSE LONG AGO. THAT CURLY HAIR STYLE RESEMBLES CURLY HAIR.
LOOK UP will Smith AFRO LOL HIS HAIR DOESNT CURL LIKE THAT WTF
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread to show ancient depictions of Jews and other Semites.
Would you agree that this depicts a Jew?
.
WTF LOOK AT THE NOSE LOL. I LITERALLY DEBUNKED THIS NONSENSE LONG AGO. THAT CURLY HAIR STYLE RESEMBLES CURLY HAIR.
LOOK UP will Smith AFRO LOL HIS HAIR DOESNT CURL LIKE THAT WTF
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Museum's are not infallible entities and disagreement between authorities in any given field does not amount to "It's all guessing, none of this is reliable". Guesswork applies to a totally untrained ignoramus' opinion.
I take it all know our word Palestine comes from Philistine (Pelesti). 'Immigrant' Philistines were Canaanite Shasus' adjacent northern neighbors, both at the very south Levant bordering the Sea, the Sinai, and the Jordan.
As far as the art's clothing and accoutrements detail allows
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
^^^ these ancient semites totally look white/caucasian right? Rofl
😂🥱
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
LOL afronuts keep getting btfo. Depictions and Truth are their enemy
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Museum's are not infallible entities and disagreement between authorities in any given field does not amount to "It's all guessing, none of this is reliable". Guesswork applies to a totally untrained ignoramus' opinion.
I take it all know our word Palestine comes from Philistine (Pelesti). 'Immigrant' Philistines were Canaanite Shasus' adjacent northern neighbors, both at the very south Levant bordering the Sea, the Sinai, and the Jordan.
As far as the art's clothing and accoutrements detail allows
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
^^^ these ancient semites totally look white/caucasian right? Rofl
😂🥱
Nobody has yet to give a source proving those two on the bottom aren’t Nubians.
Not to mention the countless other ancient Egyptian depictions debunking this all.
No egyptian mummy has “nappy” hair, or a negroid skull, stay triggered LOL
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Museum's are not infallible entities and disagreement between authorities in any given field does not amount to "It's all guessing, none of this is reliable". Guesswork applies to a totally untrained ignoramus' opinion.
I take it all know our word Palestine comes from Philistine (Pelesti). 'Immigrant' Philistines were Canaanite Shasus' adjacent northern neighbors, both at the very south Levant bordering the Sea, the Sinai, and the Jordan.
As far as the art's clothing and accoutrements detail allows
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
^^^ these ancient semites totally look white/caucasian right? Rofl
😂🥱
No egyptian mummy has “nappy” hair, or a negroid skull, stay triggered LOL
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Taz, you continue to have shallow research skills. The first thing you read you believe simply because it's in print
______________________________
The Ramesses III prisoner tiles are a collection of Egyptian faience depicting prisoners of war, found in Ramesses III's palaces at Medinet Habu (adjacent to the Mortuary Temple at Medinet Habu) and Tell el-Yahudiyeh. Large numbers of faience tiles have been found in these areas by sebakh-diggers since 1903; the best known are those depicting foreign people or prisoners.
Many were found in excavated rubbish heaps
In his 1911 paper on the tiles, French Egyptologist Georges Daressy, of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo noted
Unfortunately, there is no inscription on these tiles fixing the name of the peoples represented; we are forced to compare with the bas-reliefs of the temples or the paintings of the tombs to find a similar type and we are sometimes perplexed.
The Boston Museum of Fine Arts noted in 1908 that the tiles' "provenance is a matter of question
____________________________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Ramesses III prisoner tiles are a collection of Egyptian faience depicting prisoners of war, found in Ramesses III's palaces at Medinet Habu (adjacent to the Mortuary Temple at Medinet Habu) and Tell el-Yahudiyeh. Large numbers of faience tiles have been found in these areas by sebakh-diggers since 1903; the best known are those depicting foreign people or prisoners.Many were found in excavated rubbish heaps
In his 1911 paper on the tiles, French Egyptologist Georges Daressy, of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo noted
Unfortunately, there is no inscription on these tiles fixing the name of the peoples represented; we are forced to compare with the bas-reliefs of the temples or the paintings of the tombs to find a similar type and we are sometimes perplexed.
The Boston Museum of Fine Arts noted in 1908 that the tiles' "provenance is a matter of question
________________________________________ The foreigner tiles are in different museums but the the above group are from the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria.
The "Black African" is obviously a Kushite or Nubian
The others identified as Syrian Bedouin, Syrian and Hittite are not so certain
We can see they are not Libyans. By process of elimination it would be a fair guess that the top row are Asiatic of some type. "Shasu" has sometimes been suggested or "Shasu Bedouin" however what a Shasu defiantly looks like is uncertain. .
. Other tiles below with similar hair to the top two figures at the start of this post above, with hair coming up through headband (but hair not falling down after the band) , these below are from various museums and different museums identify them differently in some cases although all perhaps Levantine >> Top row figures estimated to be a "Shasu Bedouin" and the bottom left a "Philistine", next to him, lower right a "Palestinian" All of these figures have some similarity in hairstyle and could all be the same time, thus any of these names could attributed to any one of them, it's guessing
_________________________________________________
Second row left (in top picture next to Kusihite) has some features that one sees in a lot of figures in Egyptian art called "Asiatic" or sometimes Syrian or "Syro-Palestinian" in Book of Gates scenes. That thing in common with some of these Asiatic Book of Gates figures are that the bottom of their hair, the bangs at the bottom are curved. Secondly the head band has one or two excess pieces hanging down. They also often have beards jutting out at the bottom and coming to a point
Asiatic, Book of Gates, tomb of Ramesses III .
. Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H), lower register, scene 30: Syrian and Nubian, Tomb of Merenptah
The other heads (top picture, 3rd row) estimated by the museums as "Hittites" an Anatolian people, if they are, is also uncertain
The script on a monument at Boğazkale by a "People of Hattusas" discovered by William Wright in 1884 was found to match peculiar hieroglyphic scripts from Aleppo and Hama in Northern Syria. In 1887, excavations at Amarna in Egypt uncovered the diplomatic correspondence of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son, Akhenaten. Two of the letters from a "kingdom of Kheta"—apparently located in the same general region as the Mesopotamian references to "land of Hatti"—were written in standard Akkadian cuneiform, but in an unknown language; although scholars could interpret its sounds, no one could understand it. Shortly after this, Sayce proposed that Hatti or Khatti in Anatolia was identical with the "kingdom of Kheta" mentioned in these Egyptian texts, as well as with the biblical Hittites. Others, such as Max Müller, agreed that Khatti was probably Kheta, but proposed connecting it with Biblical Kittim rather than with the Biblical Hittites. Sayce's identification came to be widely accepted over the course of the early 20th century; and the name "Hittite" has become attached to the civilization uncovered at Boğazköy.
Hattusa ramp During sporadic excavations at Boğazköy (Hattusa) that began in 1906, the archaeologist Hugo Winckler found a royal archive with 10,000 tablets, inscribed in cuneiform Akkadian and the same unknown language as the Egyptian letters from Kheta—thus confirming the identity of the two names. He also proved that the ruins at Boğazköy were the remains of the capital of an empire that, at one point, controlled northern Syria [/QB]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This type of figure appears in many tombs almost always identified as Aamu "Asiatic" believed to be a Levantine sometimes researchers call figures in this garb "Syro-Palestinian", sometimes Canaanite
Anyway this figure appears in the Book of Gates scene at Ramesses III yet the glyph here is for a Libyan and that Libyan glyph is on many figures elsewhere with the familiar feather headed Libyan with the side lock
that is not the only error at Ramesses III. So even the Egyptian text itself in some place at Ramesses III tomb
The faience tiles are from his Temple so this is another example in attempting to identify an ethnic group with the foreigners to Egypt we have to look at several examples to determine what the figure probably is rather than an anomaly
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
These are the gentlemen who run the global egyptian museum website:
^^^ I'll take their word over a pseudo troll like Lyingess's anyday
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:The Bronze Age Sidon samples (Sidon_BA) overlap with present-day Levantines and were positioned between the ancient Levantines (Natufians/Neolithic) and ancient Iranians (Neolithic/Chalcolithic). The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region.
^^^ no Y-DNA markers to support your claim that those people are native the area
Just autosomal DNA (admixture), which does not prove ancestry
Yawn
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Just check out the facial reconstructions of ancient inhabitants of the lands that today is the country of Israel
These are reconstructions of ancient people living 6000 and 2000 years ago
Reconstruction of a face from Jesus time
Ancient Levantine and Middle Eastern people did not look like Nubians. Even the ancient Egyptians saw the difference.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Detail from a Roman coin from c AD 71
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Detail from a Roman coin from AD 79
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^^^ no Y-DNA markers to support your claim that those people are native the area
Just autosomal DNA (admixture), which does not prove ancestry
Yawn
Actually autosomal DNA is used to "prove ancestry" it's way better than Y-dna markers who are more used for population movements ...here a pic made for children so you better understand :
but ok if you want Y-dna then no problem :
quote:In addition, the two Sidon_BA males carried the Y-chromosome haplogroups45 J-P58 (J1a2b) and J-M12 (J2b) (Tables 1 and S4; Figure S11), both common male lineages in the Near East today. Haplogroup J-P58 is frequent in the Arabian peninsula with proposed origins in the Zagros/Taurus mountain region.46 It forms the vast majority of the Y chromosomes in southwestern Mesopotamia and reaches particularly high frequencies (74.1%) in Marsh Arabs in Iraq.47 On the other hand, haplogroup J-M12 is widespread at low frequency from the Balkans to India and the Himalayas, with Albanians having the highest proportions (14.3%).48 We compiled frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this geographical area and their changes over time in a dataset of ancient and modern Levantine populations (Figure S12), and note, similarly to Lazaridis et al.,13 that haplogroup J was absent in all Natufian and Neolithic Levant male individuals examined thus far, but emerged during the Bronze Age in Lebanon and Jordan along with ancestry related to Iran_ChL. All five Sidon_BA individuals had different mitochondrial DNA haplotypes49 (Table 1), belonging to paragroups common in present-day Lebanon and nearby regions (Table S5) but with additional derived variants not observed in our present-day Lebanese dataset.
A Genetic History of the Near East from an aDNA Time Course Sampling Eight Points in the Past 4,000 Years
The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant
As for Pigmentation :
quote:We highlight three findings of interest. First, an allele (G) at rs12913832 near the OCA2 gene, with a proven association to blue eye color in individuals of European descent40, has an estimated alternative allele frequency of 49% in the Levant_ChL population, suggesting that the blue-eyed phenotype was common in the Levant_ChL.
Second, an allele at rs1426654 in the SLC24A5 gene which is one of the most important determinants of light pigmentation in West Eurasians41 is fixed for the derived allele (A) in the Levant_ChL population suggesting that a light skinned phenotype may have been common in this population , although any inferences about skin pigmentation based on allele frequencies observed at a single site need to be viewed with caution42.
and I can post many other evidence.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually autosomal DNA is used to "prove ancestry" it's way better than Y-dna markers who are more used for population movements
This is the EXACT reason why you clowns are afraid to cite info on Y-DNA markers, or address anything related to Y-DNA
Because you know damn well it proves the people you are arguing for are not native to the Levant. Their ancestors MIGRATED there from the caucusus and assimilated into the culture/adopted the customs of native Levantines
A white european can migrate to south africa and have descendants who mix in with the native black african population(s) over the centuries
But that does not mean his descendants are native to that area, or that they are the same people as the original base population, you disingenous clown
And you've STILL yet to cite a credible source that talks about ancient Israelite samples, which tribe they were from, etc.
You're pure euronut pseudo, nothing more
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
No autosomal DNA has been posted, only uniparental.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Bearded mustachioed Nehhesu? What a clueless dopey proposition.
They are Sashu and no one has even tried to prove via transdisciplinary evidence a 'Nubian' identity for either.
All that's offered is i-say-blacks-can- only-be-'Nubians' lip service unworthy of serious contemplation.
Just a racist anti-black's biased propaganda by one flooding ES with 1+1=3 misinformation.
Surely allowing overt misinformation does nothing to boost ES' reputation but does the exact opposite. Maybe that's what's desired now. Just anything so long's it's another cash hit for the owner's counter.
quote:Originally posted by Fity7:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Museum's are not infallible entities and disagreement between authorities in any given field does not amount to "It's all guessing, none of this is reliable". Guesswork applies to a totally untrained ignoramus' opinion.
I take it all know our word Palestine comes from Philistine (Pelesti). 'Immigrant' Philistines were Canaanite Shasus' adjacent northern neighbors, both at the very south Levant bordering the Sea, the Sinai, and the Jordan.
As far as the art's clothing and accoutrements detail allows
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
^^^ these ancient semites totally look white/caucasian right? Rofl
😂🥱
Nobody has yet to give a source proving those two on the bottom aren’t Nubians.
.
What are you waiting for? Take your meds then when your psychosis lulls a bit try and PROVE THOSE TWO ON THE BOTTOM ARE 'NUBIANS'.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually autosomal DNA is used to "prove ancestry" it's way better than Y-dna markers who are more used for population movements
This is the EXACT reason why you clowns are afraid to cite info on Y-DNA markers, or address anything related to Y-DNA
Because you know damn well it proves the people you are arguing for are not native to the Levant. Their ancestors MIGRATED there from the caucusus and assimilated into the culture/adopted the customs of native Levantines
A white european can migrate to south africa and have descendants who mix in with the native black african population(s) over the centuries
But that does not mean his descendants are native to that area, or that they are the same people as the original base population, you disingenous clown
And you've STILL yet to cite a credible source that talks about ancient Israelite samples, which tribe they were from, etc.
You're pure euronut pseudo, nothing more
I just posted Y-dna results which you avoided and it seems you confuse ancient israelites with natufians smh
Again don't try to avoid what I posted or else I will repost them until you acknowledge them.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
My apologies; I'm used to you deflecting and appealing to autosomal DNA
But the fact that you posted J markers just goes to show how pseudo you are on the topic
J is non-Levantine in origin and migrated to the Levant from the caucusus, and then adopted the customs of the native Levantines, as I already said
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No autosomal DNA has been posted, only uniparental.
Are you scared to check these studies ? The whole papers are about autosomal DNA :
And you dare to pretend you're objective and unbiased ? How can you lie to yourself like that ? Why can't you accept these people were not "black" ? At this point honestly I don't even think it's just insecurities or a complex of inferiority that's clearly a mental condition.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The natufians are the most likely Judean progenitors. They were proto-semites. They had haplogroup E. Yet you are trying to make an appeal to J?
Rofl, how much more pseudo can one get?
Is there a new study out suggesting that paternal Y markers can completely shift into an entirely new marker?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: My apologies; I'm used to you deflecting and appealing to autosomal DNA.
But the fact that you posted J markers just goes to show how pseudo you are on the topic.
J is non-Levantine in origin and migrated to the Levant from the caucusus, and then adopted the customs of the native Levantines, as I already said.
The papers I posted already acknowledge that but what you fail to understand is that such migrations occured way before any jewish state or judaism itself existed :
quote:We compiled frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this geographical area and their changes over time in a dataset of ancient and modern Levantine populations (Figure S12), and note, similarly to Lazaridis et al.,13 that haplogroup J was absent in all Natufian and Neolithic Levant male individuals examined thus far, but emerged during the Bronze Age in Lebanon and Jordan along with ancestry related to Iran_ChL. All five Sidon_BA individuals had different mitochondrial DNA haplotypes49 (Table 1), belonging to paragroups common in present-day Lebanon and nearby regions (Table S5) but with additional derived variants not observed in our present-day Lebanese dataset."
Using your logic, I can say E isn't levantine either and came from North Africa. Anyway how many times should I repeat to you that an haplogroup isn't going to define the look of someone.
Here an example, this guy is mostly european genetically but has a typical west african "black" haplogroup :
North-West Africans are mostly under E yet why don't they look black ? :
quote:Phylogeographic analysis of the E-M81 lineages in Mediterranean populations has shown these lineages to be remarkably frequent in Berbers (80% in Mozabites; 65–73% in Berbers from Morocco) (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004) although their frequency declines sharply towards the north east (Egypt ffi5%). E-M81 lineages are practically absent in Eastern Europe (Pericic´ et al. 2005) and uncommon in Italy, with the exception of Sicily (5.5%) (Semino et al. 2004) where there was an Islamic occupation that lasted for over two centuries (878–1091 AD)
I've posted more than one study that say proto-semites had haplogroup E
Yet you're trying to insert J into the E haplogroup. J came from the caucusus and assimilated into native Levantine culture and adopted the customs
You're basically trying to assert that Abraham and his ancestors came from the caucusus mountains
ROFL
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
And now that you've realized how miserably you've failed by appealing to the J marker, you are posting photos of caucasians with E markers (which are a minority)
ROFL
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The natufians are the most likely Judean progenitors. They were proto-semites. They had haplogroup E. Yet you are trying to make an appeal to J?
Rofl, how much more pseudo can one get?
Is there a new study out suggesting that paternal Y markers can completely shift into an entirely new marker?
Natufians lived millenias before any "judean" existed, you literally compare a paleolithic population to a late bronze age/early iron age population...
But despite this ancient jews, modern jews and modern near easterners all have natufian ancestry :
Also if you pay attention to what I posted not all the ancient samples were under J and yes it's totally possible that y-dna completely shifth to another type of marker see for example what happened in the iberian peninsula with R1b :
quote:These groups lived in close proximity and admixed to form the Bronze Age population after 2000 BCE with ~40% ancestry from incoming groups (Fig. 2B and fig. S6). Y-chromosome turnover was even more dramatic (Fig. 2B), as the lineages common in Copper Age Iberia (I2, G2, H) were nearly completely replaced by one lineage, R1b-M269. These patterns point to a higher contribution of incoming males than female s, also supported by a lower proportion of non-local ancestry on the X-chromosome (table S14 and fig. S7), a paradigm that can be exemplified by a Bronze Age tomb from Castillejo del Bonete containing a male with Steppe ancestry and a female with ancestry similar to Copper Age Iberians.
Also no one denied ashkenazim have european ancestry that's actually well known that's why I don't buy the "we're middle eastern too" ; Here I'm talking about modern day near eastern people and mizrahim jews like iraqi or iranian jews. Also the closest people to these ancient israelite samples are modern day samaritans then christian lebanese.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Now he's going back to autosomal DNA after getting owned on the Y-DNA
Rofl
Antalas is asserting E markers turned into J markers
Then he posts photos of caucasian people with E markers (which are a minority), as if they are the only people who have it
Ashkenazi jew-ish people only have E1b1b at 20%
And why didn't antalas mention any of the black populations with E1b1b?
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Now he's going back to autosomal DNA after getting owned on the Y-DNA
Then if we can't use autosomal DNA why did you use a paper that highlight the european autosomal ancestry of ashkenazi jews ? Also where did you "owned" me, I literally posted the Y-DNA results of ancient israelites and most were under J-P58.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Antalas is asserting E markers turned into J markers
It's not my opinion it's based on genetic and archaeological datas. Read more carefully the quote I posted instead of reacting hysterically.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Then he posts photos of caucasian people with E markers (which are a minority), as if they are the only people who have it
Ashkenazi jew-ish people only have E1b1b at 20%
And why didn't antalas mention any of the black populations with E1b1b?
Thanks for contradicting yourself the pic you posted show that such Hg peaks also in NW Africa as I stated so why don't they look black ? Moreover are you aware the clades found in East africa aren't the same as the one found in the middle east ? You keep showing how ignorant you are...after dismissing autosomal dna, you now don't even understand how all this clade system works.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Antalas said:
"Then if we can't use autosomal DNA why did you use a paper that highlight the european autosomal ancestry of ashkenazi jews ? Also where did you "owned" me, I literally posted the Y-DNA results of ancient israelites and most were under J-P58. "
^ strawman argument. The paper I appealed to compared AJ's to natufians and based their non-levantine origin on comparisons to natufians, and I posted natufian Y markers afterward to further substantiate the claim.
The purpose of appealing to that article was to show that natufians were the most likely Judean progenitors. And they had E, not J
I've stated multiple times that autosomal DNA does not prove ancestry
If your position were correct, then according to your logic, that study would have said the autosomal DNA supports the ashkenazi being Jews. But it doesn't.
And no, J is from the caucusus mountains. Ancient Israelites did not migrate from the caucusus mountains, and proto-semites had E. Not J
Antalas said:
"Thanks for contradicting yourself the pic you posted show that such Hg peaks also in NW Africa as I stated so why don't they look black ? Moreover are you aware the clades found in East africa aren't the same as the one found in the middle east ? You keep showing how ignorant you are...after dismissing autosomal dna, you now don't even understand how all this clade system works."
How did I contradict myself by showing that caucasians aren't the only ones with E1b1b?
Rofl
Then, antalas says the subclades of E that are mentioned in the source I've shared "aren't the same clades as the ones found in the middle east", yet at the same time he appeals to this source and claims it supports his argument about north africans (moroccans) having E1b1b in high frequencies
ROFL
And I guess somalians and ethiopians aren't black anymore
Bahaha
You done yet? Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Pseudo euronut lies always get exposed
You lost when you tried to claim ancient Israelites had J markers when it's a fact that proto-semites had E
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
it's plain TopRight and BottomLeft are bonnetted Philistine --google img search Philistine headdress--
No it's not plain and you are just guessing. Try proving it with similar figures accompanied by glyphs. And you leave out two of the four for some reason
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
just as it's plain these two men are both fillet hair-stayed, bearded with sideburns Shasu.
identifying them as Shasu that is not plain at all Try proving it with similar figures accompanied by glyphs for Shasu
In my opinion, none of the above figures can be identified with certainty although I think none being Nubian is reasonable, (although one of those big stock photo sites has the left of the bottom two group as Nubian)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
As we can see in the right column haplogroup T was prevalent in this Chalcolithic period article from a site a in Israel (4500–3800 BC) much closer in time period to the Israelites than the Natufians (15,000 to 11,500 years ago)
and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally been from Israel and spoken a Semitic language. As well the exact geographic origin of some haplogroups are not determined with certainty
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Geneticists agree that proto-semites had haplogroup E
Yet the pseudos keep trying to insert other haplogroups and claim these people are Israelites
Y-DNA markers do not change. Stop being pseudo
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Geneticists agree that proto-semites had haplogroup E
Yet the pseudos keep trying to insert other haplogroups and claim these people are Israelites
Y-DNA markers do not change. Stop being pseudo
"semite" is a language family it doesn't mean anything about religion or genetics and natufians are a paleolithic population (they didn't look black either).
Meanwhile these are the Y-DNA results of ancient levantines who lived in what is now Lebanon and Israel/Palestine :
quote:In addition, the two Sidon_BA males carried the Y-chromosome haplogroups45 J-P58 (J1a2b) and J-M12 (J2b) (Tables 1 and S4; Figure S11), both common male lineages in the Near East today.
Let alone the autosomal results. Can't believe I'm literally trying to debunk the narrative of someone who believes that ancient jews looked like afro-americans... all of this because of his childish attempt to feel some kind of kinship with the people he regularly meets in his bible.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Proto-semites had E Y-DNA markers, which means their descendants would as well.
Afro-asiatic, semitic, whatever you want to call them --
Their Y-DNA haplogroups were E. Not J
Ancient Israelites (descendants of proto-semites) would have had haplogroup E just like their ancestors.
1 + 1 = 2
A B C D E F G
Why are you so obsessed with trying to make it seem as though J came from E?
Oh yeah, because you're a gaslighting pseudo euronut
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Geneticists agree that proto-semites had haplogroup E
Yet the pseudos keep trying to insert other haplogroups and claim these people are Israelites
Y-DNA markers do not change. Stop being pseudo
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ I am talking about the physical proto-semites themselves
Geneticists agree that they had haplogroup E
Antalas is trying to create a strawman by bringing language into the equation because he is getting manhandled
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This thread is supposed to be for pictures. First you tried to divert it by posting up text about Qibt and Copts that you have posted about literally 25 times before in other threads and now you are diverting with genetics and now language as well as your off topic ad-hom post copies spams that he has already spammed about dozens of times before
Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical reconstructed proto-language, not a people It is the hypothetical linguistic ancestor to the Semitic languages. There is no consensus regarding the location of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat (origin) scholars hypothesize that it may have originated in the Levant, the Sahara, or the Horn of Africa or Arabian Peninsula
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Is lioness the troll crying about a thread not going the way she wants? You and these clowns troll all my threads
They were misrepresenting history in this thread so I presented scholastic historical documentation to expose them
And they brought up DNA in here, not me. So you can shutup about that as well
Now what Y-DNA haplogroup does this genetic source say that proto-semites had?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Proto-semites had E Y-DNA markers, which means their descendants would as well.
Afro-asiatic, semitic, whatever you want to call them --
Their Y-DNA haplogroups were E. Not J
Ancient Israelites (descendants of proto-semites) would have had haplogroup E just like their ancestors.
1 + 1 = 2
A B C D E F G
Why are you so obsessed with trying to make it seem as though J came from E?
Oh yeah, because you're a gaslighting pseudo euronut
We're not talking about "proto-semites" here but ancient israelites/jews. Between the latter and the former there are easily more than 8k-9k years are you implying that no migrations or movement of population occured during this timeframe in the Middle east ?
Moreover I don't care about what you think ancient israelites should have, I just literally posted the results so there is no place for speculation now.
Also I never tried to make "J came from E" wtf are you talking about ? Read correctly what I post or maybe it's a problem of IQ idk.
("euronut" I'm not european but ok)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I guarantee further discussion with Tazarah will lead absolutely nowhere, he's in spam mode now already has the same graphic up 3 times already on this same page, skull about 3 inches thick. He's strictly in repetition mode now, dont fall for it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So basically antalas is saying that over time, E markers turned into J markers. That's literally what he is arguing everytime he tries to say Israelites had J markers
I've cited numerous DNA sources stating that proto-semites had haplogroup E, and a study saying that the Natufians (HAPLOGROUP E) were the MOST LIKELY JUDEAN PROGENITORS
Do you know what proto means? It means original
Do you know what Judean progenitors means? It means the ancient Israelites descend from them
Thus, common sense tells us that descendants of the original semites would also have some clade of haplogroup E
Not J, or anything else
Do you know how Y-DNA works buddy?
I'm sure you do, but you want to play dumb and spew pseudo euronut rhetoric
J is not afro-asiatic, semitic, whatever you want to call it
And PROTO SEMITES did not have haplgroup J, they had E
So you trying to make a case for J or anything else other than E is remedial at best
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guarantee further discussion with Tazarah will lead absolutely nowhere, he's in spam mode now already has the same graphic up 3 times already on this same page, skull about 3 inches thick
Well when dealing with people like you and antalas, etc., who think they can gaslight and convince people that bloodlines and Y-DNA change over time, the only thing I can do is continue to shove evidence in your face that demonstrates how pseudo you are
P.S, I don't see you crying about archeotypery spamming the same pseudo CGI images over and over again
I wonder why not? Oh yeah, you're a pseudo troll
And birds of a feather flock together
The Lyingess's opinion is soooo important [sarcasm]
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Yes -- proto-semites, which are the progenitors of the semitic/afro-asiatic bloodline, had E haplogroups and yes I acknowledge the fact that J came from the caucusus and has no relation to ancient proto-semites but I still say ancient Israelites had J because I am a pseudo euronut"
-- antalas
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
"Yes I keep using strawman arguments because I'm not able to refute the peer-reviewed papers Antalas posted"
"Yes I clearly see that most of these ancient samples from the Levant were under J but I avoid them because it makes me feel unconfortable I want to believe ancient israelites were people who looked like me"
"Yes there is easily 9000 years that separates "proto-semites" from ancient jews but let's pretend no movement of population occured during this time period"
"yes I clearly see that population in the middle east all have consistent amount of "proto-semite" ancestry but still autosomal dna is "pseudo""
"Yes antalas posted different papers who all reach the same conclusions about ancient israelites being similar to modern day near eastern population but hey you know what ? Let's avoid that and use XIXth century quotes relating the subjective point of view of some white americans"
-- Tazarah
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Antalas; if geneticists agree that the ancestors of the ancient Israelites had Y-DNA haplogroup E, then how in your pseudo euronut mind can you possibly come to the conclusion that they magically transformed into having J markers, regardless of how much time has passed?
In another 8,000 or so years, is J going to transform into a different Y marker?
It's not a strawman argument, it's an accurate breakdown of the retarded pseudo nonsense that you are trying to spew.
The only person who has your back on this is the Lyingness and that honestly is not a good indication.
This is what we call cognitive dissonance.
🤡
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It seems that Tazarah does not understand one smack about populations genetics, or the dynamics of movements of peoples in the ancient Levant. He is just stuck in his dreamworld where everyone was black.
Stop trolling this thread, you are just too daft to understand those articles and diagrams which Antalas posted.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Archeotypery, maybe you can help your buddy out.
If geneticists agree that the ancestors of the ancient Israelites had Y-DNA haplogroup E, then how on earth does the passing of time allow them to transform into people with J markers?
Please explain.
Y-DNA is passed down from father to son and remains the same, unless an EXTERNAL population comes in from somewhere else.
Are these J markers going to transform into something else again in another 8,000 years or so?
This is not trolling -- it's exposing euronut pseudoism
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
P.S.,
The clown who literally trolled my thread about the Igbo people being recognized as bloodline Israelites is accusing me of trolling his thread because facts are hurting his feelings and destroying his euronut pseudoism.
Rofl
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Therefore one cannot know if the Israelites were all of one haplogroup, end of tangent
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ proto-semites had haplogroup E, according to geneticists.
Do you know what proto means? It means original, the first of it's kind
To then say that Israelites, who descend from proto-semites, would have any haplogroup other than E is the most pseudo thing you have ever said
You're a pseudo troll and your laughable input in this thread solidifies it even further
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The problem is these racist pseudo euronuts like archeotypery, antalas and Lyingness know that a large quantitity of so-called african americans or "west africans" have Y-DNA haplogroup E
As do large quantities of other so-called "black" people
So they want to do as much mental gymnastics as possible to try making it seem like ancient Israelites were anything other than haplogroup E,
Even though the ancestors of the Israelites undeniably had haplogroup E
They are even willing to gaslight and display cognitive dissonance without any shame at all
Completely hilarious. And they wonder why the "BHI movement" is growing so fast and has become so popular
Non-white people are tired of the obvious and retarded euronut lies and pseudoism that has plagued the world for centuries
Get over it already and stop making yourselves look like idiotic clowns
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Therefore one cannot know if the Israelites were all of one haplogroup, end of tangent
Do you read the bible?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The Lyingness does not read the Bible at all, in another thread she attacked me and called me racist for saying God has a chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), for saying that the nations have judgements coming (Jeremiah 30:11), etc.
She even said "no fair God would be like that" after I pointed these things out
She's pure emotion + pseudoism
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that Tazarah does not understand one smack about populations genetics, or the dynamics of movements of peoples in the ancient Levant. He is just stuck in his dreamworld where everyone was black.
Stop trolling this thread, you are just too daft to understand those articles and diagrams which Antalas posted.
Exactly It's a lost case.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
So they want to do as much mental gymnastics as possible to try making it seem like ancient Israelites were anything other than haplogroup E,
It is likely that the Israelites may have been of haplogroup E but they might also have been of haplogroup T and J as well and I just post on the previous page ancient Israel remains around the time period of the Israelites bearing T and E (although this is just at one site) Also the Lemba tribe in South Africa carry E, J and T ancestry
You dont want to hear that because of your own racism and attempts at exclusion to define "fake Jews"
As well, on a biological level the mitochondrial DNA, female side of the ancient Israelites is the other half of who they are
I am not part of this "they" I think for myself
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Therefore one cannot know if the Israelites were all of one haplogroup, end of tangent
Do you read the bible?
I have read some of it It falls under that category of what Tazarah calls "pseudo"
__________________________ Deuteronomy 7:6 “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
________________________
^^ this for example is complete bullshit, no more believable than the Easter bunny or Santa Claus
It's time to wake from fantasy land
If God exists God would be out there expanding the universe not choosing select groups of humans to be special and above other people. It's a disgusting concept and has no basis in reality. It's a tribal myth and it's primitive
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Antalas agrees with lioness
Ouch my feelings are hurt
Antalas please explain how the Israelites (according to you) have a different Y-DNA haplogroup than their natufian ancestors?
👉🏾🤡👈🏾
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: but they might also have been of haplogroup T and J as well and I just post on the previous page ancient Israel remains around the time period of the Israelites bearing T and E (although this is just at one site)
Source or shutup, troll
You're pure pseudo and when you get debunked you start deflecting and trying to divert attention away from the original topic
If proto-semites, the ancestors of the Israelites, had haplogroup E, please explain how it is genetically possible for their descendants (the Israelites) to be anything other than E?
You're 200% pseudo
👉🏾🤡👈🏾
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
here we go, because he is not confident in his arguments he come in with the ad hominem graphics repetitiously, the one above he has probably posted 30 times before and has nothing to do with the topic.
Talking to Tazarah is pointless, he simply incapable of grasping certain facts and concepts,
Message to self and others: dont feed the spam troll
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ after being asked for sources to support her pseudoism, the Lyingness deflects as usual and says I'm using ad homs
But Lyingness must have forgotten that she was throwing ad homs at me yesterday in this thread and even before yesterday as well
Not only is Lyingness a pseudo troll, but a pathetic deflecting hypocrite as well
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Tazarah is not capable of grasping mine and antalas's pseudo logic which suggests that Y-DNA haplogroup E must have transformed into other Y markers over a certain period of time"
-- the Lyingness
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
According to Lyingness; God can't do godly things like expand the universe simply because he has a chosen people
Rofl
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that Tazarah does not understand one smack about populations genetics, or the dynamics of movements of peoples in the ancient Levant. He is just stuck in his dreamworld where everyone was black.
Stop trolling this thread, you are just too daft to understand those articles and diagrams which Antalas posted.
Exactly It's a lost case.
.
Says the one who doesn't know what an autosome is.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Therefore one cannot know if the Israelites were all of one haplogroup, end of tangent
Do you read the bible?
I have read some of it It falls under that category of what Tazarah calls "pseudo"
__________________________ Deuteronomy 7:6 “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
________________________
^^ this for example is complete bullshit, no more believable than the Easter bunny or Santa Claus
It's time to wake from fantasy land
If God exists God would be out there expanding the universe not choosing select groups of humans to be special and above other people. It's a disgusting concept and has no basis in reality. It's a tribal myth and it's primitive
.
Don't look now but the universe is expanding and has been since Beresheith "In the beginning," the plosive B of both Beresheith and Big Bang.
Everything's in motion as set by Yah (physics) before His sabbatical. haAdam (humanity) is the destined master of the physical plane who has the God given job of tikkun olam or making better/repairing a world with God intended built in flaws.
After eons of progressive spiritual existence a human's soul evolves into a spirit being tasked with creating a universe better than this one we all complain about --why'd God make 'skeeters, disease, and birth defects?
=-=-=-=
And ah yes ain't that nothing? "Gods are real only because people believe in them."
One tribal confederacy's deity is the one the majority of the World's professing population believes in.
Israel is that tribal confederacy. Yah (short form) is their deity.
Unless one 'stands firm' in USA courts, one must touch and swear by the collection of books of Israelite law lore legend and legacy with the help of God (You Know Who Ah, like it or lump it it is what it is.
Is there any nationality on Earth whose national/tribal God(s) don't have members siphoned off to worshiping and praying to the God of Israel either alone (Hebraic or Islamic) or in non-Semitic triune palatability (Christianity, Mormonism, etc).
No other small tribe's tiny nation's God(s) are worshipped in every country. Only 'Vodun' Orisha and Vedic God(s) even come close.
Mmhmm how 'bout that * Western Aithiopia * Joppa/Tel Aviv Aithiopia * Eastern Aithiopia God(s) have traveled wide alongside their believers and been adopted and adapted by those of some other race(s) (because of their universal human appeal).
=-=-=-=
Everyone has the right of self-determination to reject, accept, whatever have you, deity or even the concept of a god, without reproach.
Your there's no such thing as (a) god is no better than belief in God(s). There've always been atheist yet theists always outnumbered them and the deist put together.
Must still be some use or value to society as a whole.
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Hebrew is only one of the Semitic languages and the ancestors of the Israelites may or may not have originally spoken a Semitic language. And also may or may not have included people not originally from the Levant.
Therefore one cannot know if the Israelites were all of one haplogroup, end of tangent
Do you read the bible?
I have read some of it It falls under that category of what Tazarah calls "pseudo"
__________________________ Deuteronomy 7:6 “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
________________________
^^ this for example is complete bullshit, no more believable than the Easter bunny or Santa Claus
It's time to wake from fantasy land
If God exists God would be out there expanding the universe not choosing select groups of humans to be special and above other people. It's a disgusting concept and has no basis in reality. It's a tribal myth and it's primitive
The Bible is Truth, and that statement is True. GOD LOVES the Jews and is protecting Israel but GOD LOVES Christians and wishes for you to be saved. Through Israel, Messiah JESUS came and died for the sins of the world if they repent and believe in Him.
Don’t let triggered desperate blackwashing afrocentric nutcases deter you from the Truth of GOD, they’ll get there’s, for now their life revolves around going all over the internet trying to spread their nonsense and getting triggered at me when I show non negroid Egyptian mummies Lol!!
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The Lyingness does not read the Bible at all, in another thread she attacked me and called me racist for saying God has a chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), for saying that the nations have judgements coming (Jeremiah 30:11), etc.
She even said "no fair God would be like that" after I pointed these things out
She's pure emotion + pseudoism
Weren’t you the one commenting on my lipstickalley thread emotionally triggered like 10 times like the 100 other afrocentric racist nuts when I showed no ancient Egyptian mummy has nappy hair or a negroid skull? LOL
You’re so jealous of the Jews ur a little old failure who’s life revolves around trying to convince the world ur a Jew and getting triggered by me, I literally own ur emotions
Posted by Fity7 (Member # 23572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
LOL nice job. I’d be spamming ancient Egyptian caucasoid mummies and Hebrew depictions vs Sub Saharan depictions side by side but it’s a real pain on this site.
Truth is they Never can explain the depictions that alone proves they submitted to you/me and all they can do is whine and be triggered.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Wouldja accept good ol Greek Saint Nicholas insteada the Coca Cola creation Santa Claus?
I separate the Greek Orthodox saint from the northern European guy who goes around the world giving away when we all know they went around the world taking all they could.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Fity7
In case you haven't noticed, everyone here ignores you for the most part
Because they all know you're a mentally challenged pseudo troll who is obsessed with following me all over the internet
Yet you try to make it seem like you are somehow important
Rofl rofl rofl
And Biblical prophecy says there will be world peace when the real Israelites return to the holy land. No more violence and wars and definitely no yearly gay pride parades
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Why don't the pseudo euronuts ever show this image of Judahite captives on the Lachish reliefs?
Could it be because they undeniably look like Tyrone and Tyreek from the hood? Instead of Biff and Pete from HR?
"Harper's Bible Dictonary" by Achtemeier, Paul J; Harper & Row, page 362-- (1985) San Francisco : Harper & Row, Society of Biblical Literature
Elamite prisoners of Assyrian King Ashurbanipal, Elam Nineveh
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ You think just because you make a meme and put "Louvre Museum" that makes it real?
Do you have a source other than your meme? Because I've searched and can't find anything about the bas-relief I've posted being Elamite prisoners
...maybe because the source I referenced actually got it right, and you're just a lying pseudo?
Wow, I wish I could get away with posting memes as sources
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ You think just because you make a meme and put "Louvre Museum" that makes it real?
Do you have a source other than your meme? Because I've searched and can't find anything about the bas-relief I've posted being Elamite prisoners
...maybe because the source I referenced actually got it right, and you're just a lying pseudo?
Wow, I wish I could get away with posting memes as sources
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: About the sculpture head, of course it is contested exactly who it depicts since it did not came with a name tag, but nothing rule out it is a king. And it is still not a "negroid" head
According to scholars, this isn't even what you claim or try to imply it is. They have no idea if it was even an Israelite, or what kingdom he ruled, or if he even ruled one at all.
Nobody ever said that there wasn't caucasian people in the Levant. That's a strawman argument, because you're pseudo -- as multiple others have already pointed out.
Dude sees dark hair and a beard, so he's like yep, he's an ancient Hebrew. lol smh
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: * Figurine of a semitic slave from ancient Egypt, located in the Hecht Museum (Haifa, Israel). The figurine clearly depicts a "black" or "negro/negroid" individual.
The person who took the photos and uploaded them is a non-black, israeli woman who goes by the name of Hanay:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: After amerindians, we now have to prove israelites were not "black" either ...lol anyway I don't see the point of making this when we literally have the dna of people who lived in this area in ancient times :
Members on this site are mostly afro-americans that means mostly west african with some NW european ancestry ; they absolutely have nothing to do with the ancient levant. Moreover palestinians/lebanese often look quite similar to my people yet you do not see me claiming their civilization or history simply based on look.
I agree with you, the constant black painting is quite silly.
How come there is over 20 Afroasiatic languages in West Africa?
All these ethnic West African groups relate the Afro Asiatic branch, either genetically or linguistically and sometimes both. The Guus, Jilbe, Jimi, Jonkor, Ju, Kabali, Koenoem, Kofa, Kubi, Kupto, Lagwan, Langas, Luri, Lushi, Mabire, Maha, Mangas, Maslam, Mbara, Midah, Mser, Ngamo, Nggwahyi, Ngwaba, Pa’a, Polci, Sha, Shua, Siri, Sukur, Tahaggart, Tala, Tetserret, Tule, Tulai, Oubi, Zaar, Zari, Zeem, Zizilivakan, Zanaga, Zialo, Zul, Zumaya
quote: “Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500-6000 BCE”
(Fernández, E. et al., MtDNA analysis of ancient samples from Castellón (Spain): Diachronic variation and genetic relationships, International Congress Series, vol. 1288 (April 2006), pp. 127-129.)
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
And amenhotep 3 was clearly negroid in his statues so what does that say about Egyptian representation through art?
menhotep III in the Blue Crown | New Kingdom | The Metropolitan Museum of Art Visit
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You think just because you make a meme and put "Louvre Museum" that makes it real?
Do you have a source other than your meme? Because I've searched and can't find anything about the bas-relief I've posted being Elamite prisoners
The artwork with the Elamite prisoners is indeed housed at the Louvre. It says on the museums own homepage that those people are Elamite prisoners
quote: Date of creation/manufacture: Neo-Assyrian: Assurbanipal (VIIth century) (-668 - -627) Place of discovery: Nineveh palace of Assurbanipal
quote: Clarification on the object: Orthostate inscribed representing a scene of deportation: King Assurbanipal on his chariot and Elamite prisoners. Episodes from the Elam campaign. In the upper register, a deportee transports a woman and a child in a cart. He is preceded by three soldiers and three deportees, one of whom is holding a goose. 2nd register, two men between two soldiers hold a child. 3rd register, the king on his chariot is accompanied by his servants
It remains interesting how everybody could have back migrated to Africa, without ever having to have migrated out of Africa. Right? But yeah, the Assyrians did move into Africa and took Africans to Assyria. I agree with that part.
quote:proportions in ED Fig 4, Makrani as the most Neolithic Iran South Asian population
~Lazaridis et al.
quote: Among other groups, the Negroes and Baluch mulattoes of Baluchistan, which now forms part of West Pakistan, are of great interest to students of race and ethnic relations. Negroes in West Pakistan are called Makranis.
[...]
Professor S. K. Chatterji, the Indian linguist, discussing the basic unity underlying the diversity of culture in India, also supports this view. According to him, "the first people to arrive in India were a Negrito or Negroid race from Africa, coming at a very early period by way of Arabia and the coastline of Iran. They spread over western and southern India, and even passed on to the northeastern part of the country . . .
Makranis, the Negroes of West Pakistan John B. Edlefsen, Khalida Shah and Mohsin Farooq Phylon (1960-) Vol. 21, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1960), pp. 124-130 Published by: Clark Atlanta University DOI: 10.2307/274335 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/274335 Page Count: 7
quote:"A potential issue that could in theory influence our findings is that the exact population contributing to African ancestry in West Eurasians is unknown. To gain insight into the African source populations, we carried out PCA analyses, which suggested that the African ancestry in West Eurasians is at least as closely related to East Africans (e.g. Hapmap3 Luhya (LWK)) as to West Africans (e.g. Nigerian Yoruba (YRI)) (the same analyses show that there is no evidence of relatedness to Chadic populations like Bulala) (Text S5 and Figure S12).
We also used the 4 Population Test to assess whether the tree ((LWK, YRI),(West Eurasian, CEU)) is consistent with the data, and found no evidence for a violation,
which is consistent with a mixture of either West African or East African ancestors or both contributing to the African ancestry in West Eurasians (Table S14; Figure S13). Historically, a mixture of West and East African ancestry is plausible, since African gene flow into West Eurasia is documented from both West Africa during Roman times [34] and from East Africa during migrations from Egypt [7]. It is important to point out, however, that the difficulty of pinpointing the exact African source population is not expected to bias our inferences about the total proportion and date of mixture. The f4 Ancestry Estimation method is unbiased even when we use a poor surrogates for the true ancestral African population (as long as the phylogeny is correct), as we confirmed by repeating analyses replacing YRI with LWK, and obtaining similar results (Table S15).Our ROLLOFF admixture date estimates are also similar whether we use LWK or YRI to represent ancestral African population (Table S15), as predicted by the theory.
~Moorjani et al.
quote: S4. Mitochondrial Haplogroup Determination
The mitochondria of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2. Haplogroup X2 is present in modern populations from Europe, the Near East, Western and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Siberia, and North America (7). Haplogroup X2 has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East (7, 8) and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia (9), Hungary (10) and Germany (11).
quote:S5. Principal component analysis shows that Southern Asian populations are the closest contemporary populations to the Iranian herder GD13a was placed close to the Southern Asian samples, specifically between the Balochi, Makrani and Brahui populations of South Asia. (Fig. S4). Of the ancient samples, GD13a falls closest to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Fig. S4).
quote: S7. Outgroup f3 statistics show that GD13a shares the most genetic drift with Caucasus Hunter-gatherers
We used outgroup f3-statistics to estimate the amount of shared drift between GD13a and contemporary populations. This was performed on the dataset described in section S6 using the qp3Pop program in the ADMIXTOOLS package (13). We computed f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where X represents a modern population and Dinka, an African population equally related to Eurasians, acts as an outgroup (Fig. S7). We also repeated this analysis where X represents ancient individuals/populations. Among the ancient populations, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) have the closest affinity to GD13a (Table S3), followed by other ancient individuals from Steppe populations from the Bronze age and modern populations from the Caucasus.
This is how the throne looks when not in dim lighting
I was in Egypt and looked at this throne from up close. By up close I mean a few inches, hands reach.
This is the actual complexion and tone of the painting on the throne.
And the boys I saw looked like this, especially in the South where Tut originated from:
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
n/a
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
...
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@archeotyperyx
I'll have to do further research because I've seen multiple sources that say they are Judeans.
But either way, even if they are Elamites, it does not change anything. Ancient Elamites were semites from mesopotamia and this depiction clearly shows these people having braids in their hair, a "nappy" beard texture as well as prognathism.
I've also provided several scholastic sources demonstrating that ancient elamites were morphologically negroid.
Judean, elamite, whoever they were, they were semites and they clearly are not caucasian.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@archeotyperyx
Still posting artist reconstructions eh?
Here is what actual ancient Libyans looked like (1353 BC -1323 BC)
They were clearly "sub-saharan" africans and look nothing like the "Libyans" in your artist reconstruction.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
LOL nice job. I’d be spamming ancient Egyptian caucasoid mummies and Hebrew depictions vs Sub Saharan depictions side by side but it’s a real pain on this site.
Truth is they Never can explain the depictions that alone proves they submitted to you/me and all they can do is whine and be triggered.
This is almost comical. What will the excuses be now?
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^^
BOOM.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Ancient diversity:
More people from the 18th dynasty tomb of Anen. It shows Asiatics, a Libyan, one person from the Aegean and Africans.
Here one can read about the hieroglyphs in the pictures and their interpretations
quote:The earliest certain link with Egypt is 664 B.C., the date of the Assyrian sack of the Egyptian capital at Thebes. Although it is often possible to locate earlier events quite precisely relative to each other, neither surviving contemporary documents nor scientific dating methods such as carbon 14, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence, and archaeoastronomy are able to provide the required accuracy to fix these events absolutely in time.
quote:"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (ISAIAH 11:11-12)
quote: So shall the king of Assyria lead the captivity of Egypt and the exile of Cush, youths and old men, naked and barefoot, with bare buttocks, the shame of Egypt.
"Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer: this tribe is supposed to have founded Jerusalem (4) and named it after themselves." (Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55 - 117), The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus)
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @archeotyperyx
I'll have to do further research because I've seen multiple sources that say they are Judeans.
But either way, even if they are Elamites, it does not change anything. Ancient Elamites were semites from mesopotamia and this depiction clearly shows these people having braids in their hair, a "nappy" beard texture as well as prognathism.
I've also provided several scholastic sources demonstrating that ancient elamites were negroid morphologically.
Judean, elamite, whoever they were, they were semites and they clearly are not caucasian.
Ok, do your research. Maybe you could also mail the Louvre and ask them.
I have posted many pictures and facial reconstructions from ancient Israel depicting people that were not negroid, so I probably will not be able to convince you that the ancient Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews in the Levant were not negroid. You are free to believe what you want.
Here is an article talking about the Elamites on the orthostate. The quote is about the spacing of the figures
quote: The winner above the loser ...
This rule is at the origin of certain significant gaps found on some bas-reliefs and which are not due to alterations: for example on this element of the decoration of the palace of Assourbanipal in Nineveh 13 which represents his military campaign in Elam (fig. 5). The scene takes place after the battle and the king appears on his chariot, followed by his personal guard. The procession of the deported populations is already constituted, but does not pass above the king, nor the elite of his army because the latter would then have the same status as the vanquished.
(translated from French)
Ancient Mesopotamian writing and art Evelyne Faivre-Martin, Pallas 105, 2017
Some examples how Elamites could depict themselves
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @archeotyperyx
Still posting artist reconstructions eh?
Here is what actual ancient Libyans looked like (1353 BC -1323 BC)
They were clearly "sub-saharan" africans and look nothing like the "Libyans" in your artist reconstruction.
Libyans could vary in their looks. Here is one from the throne of Ramesses III.
A faience tile from the throne of Pharaoh Ramesses III depicting a tattooed ancient Libyan chief c. 1184 to 1153 BC
Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
Roger BLench has classified Elamite and Sumerian as Afro Asiatic
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Roger BLench has classified Elamite and Sumerian as Afro Asiatic
Exactly
But the euronuts would have you think they were caucasians
They know nothing about actual scholastics. They post pseudo CGI "facial reconstructions" and artist reconstructions, then they call it a day
Notice how archeotypery posted a pseudo reconstruction depicting a "Libyan" and then when I shared an image of an actual ancient Libyan he says "Libyans could vary in their looks."
If that were the case, and they could vary in appearance, why is he posting pseudo images in the first place and trying to push a false narrative?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Boom.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Ancient diversity:
More people from the 18th dynasty tomb of Anen. It shows Asiatics, a Libyan, one person from the Aegean and Africans.
Here one can read about the hieroglyphs in the pictures and their interpretations
quote:The earliest certain link with Egypt is 664 B.C., the date of the Assyrian sack of the Egyptian capital at Thebes. Although it is often possible to locate earlier events quite precisely relative to each other, neither surviving contemporary documents nor scientific dating methods such as carbon 14, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence, and archaeoastronomy are able to provide the required accuracy to fix these events absolutely in time.
quote:"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (ISAIAH 11:11-12)
quote: So shall the king of Assyria lead the captivity of Egypt and the exile of Cush, youths and old men, naked and barefoot, with bare buttocks, the shame of Egypt.
"Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer: this tribe is supposed to have founded Jerusalem (4) and named it after themselves." (Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55 - 117), The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus)
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: "Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king. There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyrians occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer: this tribe is supposed to have founded Jerusalem (4) and named it after themselves." (Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55 - 117), The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus)
Thought you might find this interesting, since you referenced Tacitus, a classical historian.
"The discovery, in the Parthian necropolises of Memnonium, of negro skulls, the frankly negroid type of the Elamites (fig. 31, 32, 36, 37 and 38; comp fig. 6, 7 and 8) reproduced on the Assyrian bas-reliefs, the enamels of the Achaemenid era unearthed from the excavations of Susa, confirm the information that classical historians provide on the Ethiopians of the Levant."
"L'Acropole de Suse : d'après les fouilles exécutées en 1884, 1885, 1886, sous les auspices du Musée du Louvre, Volume 1" by Marcel Dieulafoy, page 27-28 (1890) Librairie Hachette
Where is the Lyingness at, shouldn't she be here crying and complaining about people spamming the same images over and over?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Ancient Elamite Archers
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
This is not a forum I moderate Nevertheless unlike other posters many of your repetitive posts are ad hominem off topic personal attacks and the repetition and other on topic graphics also but the repetition much much more than other posters. This is not to say I never make personal remarks but if you poke a lioness ten times maybe on the eleventh time the lioness will bite.
There is some repetition here by other posters but you do it in a different way. You do it literally ten times more and you do it not to make new comments along with it, you do it purposely to take up visual space in a thread as propaganda like someone putting up advertisements everywhere adding nothing new
You are also much more divisive than other posters constantly baiting people to respond, calling their names constantly
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ a BS excuse as usual
You don't moderate this forum but have no problem complaining about me for some reason, I wonder why?
Archeotypery is doing exactly what you accuse me, right now
You can also go to this thread I created about the Igbo being recognized as Israelites and start reading near the bottom of page 1
Then honestly come back and tell me archeotypery didn't try to completely derail my thread by doing exactly what you are accusing me of right now
Gotta love it when hypocrites expose themselves. In your case it is a frequent occurence
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] ^ a BS excuse as usual
You don't moderate this forum but have no problem complaining about me for some reason, I wonder why?
I just explained it, you constantly make ad hominem personal attacks in large images and call people by name constantly
Other posters do not do this constantly
And you also abuse the format, You will repeat graphics even legit ones without additional comment, literally like 20 or more times in a thread just to try take up more visual space. That is a weak way to try to win an argument and becomes spam at that point
I dont moderate here Archeopteryx is not my problem nor is he constantly attacking me on a personal level. Its that simple
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I notice you failed to address the rest of my comment and only responded to the first line so that you could lie and make excuses
What else should be expected from a troll who supports the euronuts on this forum, and who also tries to derail threads?
Both you and archeotypery literally tried to derail my thread and you have the nerve to complain about how I respond to trolling?
You're a hypocrite as usual, nothing has changed
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ yes perfect example
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yes, I post that whenever you start trolling and lying on me to remind future readers of the type of person I am dealing with
A hypocritical troll who helps euronuts derail threads and then complains when the people who are being derailed take preventive measures
Everyone knows you are a troll and that's what that screenshot proves.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Archeotypery is doing exactly what you accuse me, right now
you confuse somebody debating you with what you do>> abusing the visual format of a thread over and over again and make constant personal attacks calling people by name etc.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Oh, dismissing evidence as "outdated" and "afrocentric" and posting the same head sculpture over and over again, and saying people are "ashamed of their roots", etc., constitutes debating? Silly me!
The funniest part is how you expect me to take his silly thread seriously after both you and him tried to derail mine
Ha
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
And amenhotep 3 was clearly negroid in his statues so what does that say about Egyptian representation through art?
I made not comment Egyptian representation through art, the topic is Ancient and historical pictures of Israelites and other Semites in the Levant. The man in the painting is considered to be probable Levantine, probable Semitic speaker
This is my Amenhotep III thread, you are acting like you are putting me on to something, meanwhile you were even in that thread, last comment, Feb 2021
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ this is legitimate repletion in order to reply to somebody's specific remark
what you do is not this
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Oh, dismissing evidence as "outdated" and "afrocentric" and posting the same head sculpture over and over again, and saying people are "ashamed of their roots", etc., constitutes debating? Silly me!
Now Lyingness is complaining and trying to play by the rules in this thread
This is why nobody takes Lyingness seriously
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: I was in Egypt and looked at this throne from up close. By up close I mean a few inches, hands reach.
I saw one of the traveling Tutankhamun shows. They often don't use bright lighting. Like many museum show the lighting is a little dim to give it a more moody effect
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Archeotypery tried to derail my thread about the Igbo people being recognized as Israelites
Lyingness also tried to derail it by posting images of mexican IUIC members among other things
Now Lyingness is complaining and trying to play by the rules in this thread
This is why nonody takes Lyingness seriously
I was doing legitimate debate, then you starting doing what you do, personal attacks and repeating stuff 20-30 times
after page and pages of that, yes I will do a few posts in kind It is only fair to myself Nothing close to your excesses You don't want any debate you want a personal bulletin board for propaganda So I let you have that in your "Negroes Are Native to Israel" thread
Stop crying constantly, move on
Again Archeopteryx is not my responsibility
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
More lies
You came in on the first page trolling and denying that the organization who made the ruling was a sephardic rabbinate,
And you even went as far as denying that DeMota was a rabbi
A certified troll who likes to pretend they are not a troll
You really let your trolling consume you that day huh?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I can bring up whatever I want in any thread; just like how you brought up mexican IUIC members in my thread about Igbo people. You don't get it yet, troll?
Treat others the way you want to be treated
They teach you that in kindergarten
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Liar, even after evidence was provided that DeMota was a rabbi and that the organization was legit, you continued trolling with personal attacks and trolling
All you do is lie and troll
That's not debating
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
see those IUIC posts, they are not calling you names. They simply refer to your beliefs so people can understand where you are coming from. I only knew you followed them by you bringing them up
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Of course those are Elamites in the quoted post below.
There's also art of some musicians at play that many also take for Judahites.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Elamite prisoners of Assyrian King Ashurbanipal, Elam Nineveh
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the Lyingness
You're a troll and everyone knows it, literally
Stop trying to complain about what people post especially when you yourself are the biggest troll on the website
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
* Photo from a book titled "Picture History of Jewish Civilization" by Bezalel Narkiss (1970).
The first chapter is called "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period".
This is page 16. It shows a model of ancient Hebrew/Israelite slaves working in an Egyptian bakery.
The caption reads:
"Model of a bakery. Bread was a staple in Egypt. There were bakeries in which one man milled the flour, another kneaded, and a third brought the bread to the oven. The entire operation was directed by the man sitting in the rear."
Just so people should know these images bandied about are of the Nine Bows (archetypic enemies of Egypt). Sometimes there are 11 bows where Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt are also represented.
This was presented 10 yrs ago here [will restore imgs if requested] view @ 90% zoom
theLioness improved the format of a version showing only Nehhesu
Anen's 9 Bows aren't the most true to ethnic accuracy per Met officials as is discussed on pg 2 of the linked thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I only noticed recently the TT226 tomb had that other Amenhotep III scene with a similar arrangement of foreigners at the bottom (put more repetition, less figure types, no glyphs, no Libyans) Amenhotep III and his Mother, Mutemwia, in a Kiosk TT 226
@Tukuler would you say with high confidence that excluding the Nubians that Semitic speakers are depicted here and what are some of the language possibilities ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Tukuler I'm looking at what you just posted, Tomb of Anen, scene with Amenhotep III and Queen To what degree to you think the gylphs correspond or do not correspond to the Book of Gates gylphs at Seti I and Merenptah >
Do you see anything at Anen that looks like an error or is all the variation due to the Book of Gates scenes 4 types but Anen and TT226 under Amenhotep III are representing a lot more than 4 (or subsets of the BGs) ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Ya, wonder if TT226 even reps 9 Bows considering the head count and no Tjemehu reps.
I notice that the above TT 226 bald figure (or cap whatever) corresponds to Tomb of Anen marked "Naharin" also says "Mesoptomia, Iraq , Syria"
wiki Naharin
Naharin, MdC transliteration nhrn, was the ancient Egyptian term for the kingdom of Mitanni during the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt. The 18th dynasty was in conflict with the kingdom of Mitanni for control of the Levant from the reigns of Thutmose I,[2] Thutmose III,[3] and Amenhotep II.[4] Amenhotep II's son, Thutmose IV, would eventually make peace with the Mitannians.[5] Henceforth, relations between Egypt and Naharin (Mitanni) were peaceful with much diplomatic gift giving according to the correspondence of the Amarna Letters. The military annals of pharaoh Thutmose III refer to Naharin in explicit[clarification needed] terms. In his 33rd Year, Thutmose III records:
His Majesty travelled north capturing the towns and laying waste the settlements of that foe Naharin.
______________
Mitanni
Mitanni , also called Hanigalbat or Hani-Rabbat (Hanikalbat, Khanigalbat, ) in Assyrian or Naharin in Egyptian texts, was a Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia.
Currently there are two hypotheses regarding how Mitanni was formed: that Mitanni was already a powerful kingdom at the end of the 17th century or in the first half of the 16th century BC, and its beginnings are from before the time of Thutmose I, so dated to the time of the Hittite sovereigns Ḫattušili I and Mursili I,[1] when the middle chronology is applied;[2] or that Mitanni came to be due to a political vacuum in Syria, which had been created first through the destruction of the kingdom of Yamhad by the Hittites and then through the inability of Hatti to maintain control of the region during the period following the death of Mursili I.[1]
____________________________
Britannica
Hurrian language
Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh OK I commented before you were through. [And I see you're still composing it]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @Tukuler I'm looking at what you just posted, Tomb of Anen, scene with Amenhotep III and Queen To what degree to you think the gylphs correspond or do not correspond to the Book of Gates gylphs at Seti I and Merenptah >
Do you see anything at Anen that looks like an error or is all the variation due to the Book of Gates scenes 4 types but Anen and TT226 under Amenhotep III are representing a lot more than 4 (or subsets of the BGs) ?
.
Forget trying to make any rendition of BG 4:5 some kind of invariable template for all depictions of ancient Egyptians, Levantines, Up-Nilers, and living Westerners in the New Kingdom because it isn't.
Of course the artists had 'fake books' to guide them, but as we've discussed many a time, in the end supervisors weren't always scrupulous and let a lot of errors go uncorrected even in kings' tombs at times.
The text of each painting stands on its own and in Anen each person has an identifying caption of specific origin. The Book of Gates is a text and except for ~4 tomb wall paintings the art is usually stick figures (check out the coffin(s) with BG written on them.
BG 4:5 is generic in it's divisions not specific. Any Egyptian north south or middle could be the Romit Romitu Any Arabian Plater could rep the four Aamw figures. Any African south of Swenet could serve as the Nehhesu images. Any African west of Egypt stands in for the Tjemehu model. These are the four generic types of human cattle in the Herd of Ra.
But the Nine Bows are not the Herd of Ra They're supposed to be controlled enemies. Of course each nationality falls under one of the generic headings.
Senger Naharin Keftiu & Sashu are AAMW Kush Irem IntiuSeti & MentuNuSetet are NEHESU Tjehenu are TJEMEHU
Iraq southAnatolia & Jordan are MIDDLE EAST Sudan Eritrea & Egypt's eastern desert are INNER AFRICA Libya is NORTH AFRICA
Yes both Mentu Nu Setet and Keftiu are outside the strict mold. The former though classed as Nehesu lived north of Aswan along the Red Sea shore. The latter are technically a type of Hwa Nbw (Aegean) who migrated east and southeast, think of the Philistine example for Aegeans who became Levantines to understand how the Keftiu is AAMW and pay attention to the national costume. The Met officials made a lot of commentary on Anen's Keftiu figure.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You may have forgotten but I after translating the hieroglyphs I went on to label the region and modern name that each 'Bow' inhabited. And that's why my graphic "also says 'Mesoptomia, Iraq , Syria'
You may want to follow the original posting link to refresh yourself on what we both wrote years ago.
So Naharin, in my view, is a region not a specific country in a region. naharin = potamia : semitic = greek : rivers = rivers
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
I notice that the above TT 226 bald figure (or cap whatever) corresponds to Tomb of Anen marked "Naharin" also says "Mesoptomia, Iraq , Syria"
wiki Naharin
Naharin, MdC transliteration nhrn, was the ancient Egyptian term for the kingdom of Mitanni during the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt. The 18th dynasty was in conflict with the kingdom of Mitanni for control of the Levant from the reigns of Thutmose I,[2] Thutmose III,[3] and Amenhotep II.[4] Amenhotep II's son, Thutmose IV, would eventually make peace with the Mitannians.[5] Henceforth, relations between Egypt and Naharin (Mitanni) were peaceful with much diplomatic gift giving according to the correspondence of the Amarna Letters. The military annals of pharaoh Thutmose III refer to Naharin in explicit[clarification needed] terms. In his 33rd Year, Thutmose III records:
His Majesty travelled north capturing the towns and laying waste the settlements of that foe Naharin.
______________
Mitanni
Mitanni , also called Hanigalbat or Hani-Rabbat (Hanikalbat, Khanigalbat, ) in Assyrian or Naharin in Egyptian texts, was a Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia.
Currently there are two hypotheses regarding how Mitanni was formed: that Mitanni was already a powerful kingdom at the end of the 17th century or in the first half of the 16th century BC, and its beginnings are from before the time of Thutmose I, so dated to the time of the Hittite sovereigns Ḫattušili I and Mursili I,[1] when the middle chronology is applied;[2] or that Mitanni came to be due to a political vacuum in Syria, which had been created first through the destruction of the kingdom of Yamhad by the Hittites and then through the inability of Hatti to maintain control of the region during the period following the death of Mursili I.[1]
____________________________
Britannica
Hurrian language
Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
BG 4:5 is generic in it's divisions not specific. Any Egyptian north south or middle could be the Romit Romitu Any Arabian Plater could rep the four Aamw figures.
Not much evidence for Arabian plate people to the south of the Levant specified in Egyptian text
You may have forgotten but I after translating the hieroglyphs I went on to label the region and modern name that each 'Bow' inhabited. And that's why my graphic "also says 'Mesoptomia, Iraq , Syria'
You may want to follow the original posting link to refresh yourself on what we both wrote years ago.
So Naharin, in my view, is a region not a specific country in a region. naharin = potamia : semitic = greek : rivers = rivers
[/QUOTE]you are using those bible related links However I dont know much about that topic, what kind of sources or lack of researchers have outside the bible Do you think it is safe to say they were not Semitic speakers? Also, what I had posted earlier, associating them with Mitanni and Hurrian, do you see that as correct?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There are only three distinct figures here. They just get repeated to fill up space. They are * a southern Aamw * a Nehesu (upper Nubia) * a northern Aamw
This is the Nehesu-Aamu dichotomy also seen on royal sandals and walking sticks it's not really 9 Bows art.
Languages spoken by man1 or man2 could be any of the far north or far south Semitic lects of that era. You could look at the foreign correspondance docs between Egy and Naharin for the language used and I guess the other guy spoke a Canaanitic.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I only noticed recently the TT226 tomb had that other Amenhotep III scene with a similar arrangement of foreigners at the bottom (put more repetition, less figure types, no glyphs, no Libyans) Amenhotep III and his Mother, Mutemwia, in a Kiosk TT 226
@Tukuler would you say with high confidence that excluding the Nubians that Semitic speakers are depicted here and what are some of the language possibilities ?
.
I think TT226 belonged to one Heqareshu
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] There are only three distinct figures here. They just get repeated to fill up space. They are * a southern Aamw * a Nehesu (upper Nubia) * a northern Aamw
This is the Nehesu-Aamu dichotomy also seen on royal sandals and walking sticks it's not really 9 Bows art.
But if it is not BG either then what it? Looking at the tomb of Anen figures, they had Nehesu each dressed exactly the same yet labeled in the gylphs as separate groups of Nehusu. Book of these foreigner sets under Amenhotep III.
But I guess you are right because they did not put glyphs there, maybe it is just some random few foreigners underfoot to adorn the throne
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The northern Arabin Plate is adjacent to the Rock ie the mountain chains of Taurus Caucasus and the Armenian Highlands. So as these folk crossed the Daryal Gorge they probably brought Altaic and Caucasian languages into Mesopotamia and Levant.
Naharin in Egyptian use during parts of the 18th Dyn was limited to the states as per your researches. However other peoples of the time might not have agreed with Egypt's use of the term. Naharin is not a native Egyptian language word. It was borrowed from the Aamw.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:You may have forgotten but I after translating the hieroglyphs I went on to label the region and modern name that each 'Bow' inhabited. And that's why my graphic "also says 'Mesoptomia, Iraq , Syria'
You may want to follow the original posting link to refresh yourself on what we both wrote years ago.
So Naharin, in my view, is a region not a specific country in a region. naharin = potamia : semitic = greek : rivers = rivers
you are using those bible related links However I dont know much about that topic, what kind of sources or lack of researchers have outside the bible Do you think it is safe to say they were not Semitic speakers? Also, what I had posted earlier, associating them with Mitanni and Hurrian, do you see that as correct?
.
Don't think of them as Bible related links. It's not about so-the-bible-say This is language not 'religion'. Hebrew scriptures are used like any other writing of the time and place.
Nahar is a Hebrew word, so what? Do you think the Hebrew speaking people were walking around all holy holy and inseparable from using language just like all the other Arabian Plate peoples? No just compare Hebrew Naharain to the words other AsioAfrican speakers had.
Yes, knowing Hebrew alephbet was a great boost in my learning of hieroglyph letter sound and transliteration and sometimes word meanings when I used Budge's Egyptian Language: easy lessons in Egyptian Hieroglyphics to teach myself the letters for the first time.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What do you expect 21st century methodology in the Bronze-Iron ages?
Why are you trying to make one scene from the Book of Gates into the end all and be all? It is not any yardstick all paintings must measure up to.
Again and listen carefully
Nine Bows art =/= BG 4:5 art. They each are their own thing. 9Bows are specific BG 4:5 is generic
Heqareshu's enemies under the throne isn't even a proper Nine Bows depiction and just shows Nehesu Aamw dichotomy. To me the reason for two different TT226 Aamw types is because the far north Arabian Plate is very different from its central and southern regions. Retjenu and Sashu have very different morphology and ethnic culture compared to Wawat and lets say Kerma. Still it makes little sense to me that Mentu nu Setet should look or dress exactly like Kush. Maybe I need to look into them a bit more though Medjay too were originally Nehesu. The Mentu nu Setet range apparently ran as far north as the Sinai.
I wonder where you're going with this and so I guess I can't add much more than I already have.
Time I thanked you for your contributions and leave off in the face of needless self- confusion starting to heap up post by post.
Besides we went through this already many years ago (follow the darn link) and unless there's some new value to add am not prepared for a contortionist's convolution of what should be a straight line.
Thx 4/t Mitani/Hurri connection and bye for now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] There are only three distinct figures here. They just get repeated to fill up space. They are * a southern Aamw * a Nehesu (upper Nubia) * a northern Aamw
This is the Nehesu-Aamu dichotomy also seen on royal sandals and walking sticks it's not really 9 Bows art.
But if it is not BG either then what it? Looking at the tomb of Anen figures, they had Nehesu each dressed exactly the same yet labeled in the gylphs as separate groups of Nehusu. Book of these foreigner sets under Amenhotep III.
But I guess you are right because they did not put glyphs there, maybe it is just some random few foreigners underfoot to adorn the throne
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
W24A three pots N25 Hill-country or "Foreign land" T14 throw stick
I don't know what glyph the three tomato looking things are above the hill The Kushite also has hill and throw stick glyph at the beginning (assuming that the text after each figure corresponds in particular to that figure)
The three pots are rare and reference water or the god Nu/Nun
I dont see anything too specific to one of the Libyan groups' glyphs and does not resemble the typical Libyan glyph (assuming that the text after each figure corresponds in particular to that figure)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
About the bakery. The caption in the book does not say that those who are depicted are Hebrew slaves. It seems more that the author used the model as an illustration of how a bakery could have looked like in ancient Egypt.
The description of the model in the museum catalogue does not say anything about Hebrews. It just tells us that it is a model with a bakery scene from the tomb of Ini, first Intermediate Period, c 2090 BC
The first chapter of the book is titled "the Hebrews in the Biblical Period" and that model of the "negro" Hebrews is in that chapter on page 16.
The author didn't randomly put that model in there for no reason, nice try though. Gaslighting will not work.
But feel free to call the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy, and complain:
+39 011 4406903
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Another photo from the same book, "Picture History of Jewish Civilization" by Bezalel Narkiss (1970).
Pages 13-14 shows a photo of ancient Hebrew/Israelite slaves working in an Egyptian granary.
The Hebrew/Israelite slaves depicted are negroid people with black afros. So are the Egyptians.
The caption for this photo reads:
"Model of a granary. Taxes were paid in produce, and the wheat collected in this way was stored in state granaries scattered throughout Egypt. At the right, the taskmaster, stick in hand, stands over the people to supervise their work. At the lower right, a clerk records the number of sacks of wheat being störed in the granary."
Why should I complain? The museum of Turin does not claim that the bakery model shows Hebrews. It is your claim. The model is just an illustration. You reading into the model something that simply is not there. Not even the caption in the book claims that they are Hebrews. If it is not stated in any hieroglyphs in the tomb there is no way to say that they were Hebrews. It is only a guess.
Also the granary. The caption does not say that those who work there are Hebrews. Where in the caption do you see the word Hebrew? Caption: "Model of a granary. Taxes were paid in produce, and the wheat collected in this way was stored in state granaries scattered throughout Egypt. At the right, the taskmaster, stick in hand, stands over the people to supervise their work. At the lower right, a clerk records the number of sacks of wheat being stored in the granary." I do not see the word Hebrew in the caption.
These pictures are just illustrations of how certain industries could look like in ancient Egypt. There is no proof that the people in the pics are Hebrews, the captions do not say it and the museum does not say it.
Sometimes pictures are put in books to illustrate certain things. Here the author wants to illustrate these types of industries. He does not say those in the pictures are Hebrews.
That type of models are not so unusual in Egyptian tombs.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The first chapter of the book is titled "the Hebrews in the Biblical Period" and that model of the "negro" Hebrews is in that chapter on page 16.
The author didn't randomly put that model in there for no reason, nice try though. Gaslighting will not work.
But feel free to call the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy, and complain:
+39 011 4406903
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Why should I complain? The museum of Turin does not claim that the bakery model shows Hebrews. It is your claim. The model is just an illustration. You reading into the model something that simply is not there. Not even the caption in the book claims that they are Hebrews. If it is not stated in any hieroglyphs in the tomb there is no way to say that they were Hebrews. It is only a guess.
Also the granary. The caption does not say that those who work there are Hebrews. Where in the caption do you see the word Hebrew? Caption: "Model of a granary. Taxes were paid in produce, and the wheat collected in this way was stored in state granaries scattered throughout Egypt. At the right, the taskmaster, stick in hand, stands over the people to supervise their work. At the lower right, a clerk records the number of sacks of wheat being stored in the granary." I do not see the word Hebrew in the caption.
These pictures are just illustrations of how certain industries could look like in ancient Egypt. There is no proof that the people in the pics are Hebrews, the captions do not say it and the museum does not say it.
Sometimes pictures are put in books to illustrate certain things. Here the author wants to illustrate these types of industries. He does not say those in the pictures are Hebrews.
That type of models are not so unusual in Egyptian tombs.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So the chapter of the book dealing specifically with Hebrews in the Biblical period, is showing images of people who are not Hebrews.
Got it!
Here is also the number to the national museum, Copenhagen (Denmark)
+45 33 13 44 11
Why don't you give them a call too while you're it it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The first chapter of the book is titled "the Hebrews in the Biblical Period" and that model of the "negro" Hebrews is in that chapter on page 16.
The author didn't randomly put that model in there for no reason, nice try though. Gaslighting will not work.
But feel free to call the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy, and complain:
+39 011 4406903
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: So the chapter of the book dealing specifically with Hebrews in the Biblical period, is showing images of people who are not Hebrews.
Got it!
Maybe because models in Egyptian tombs with nametags saying "Hebrews" are just too rare so he just had to put Egyptian models of the industries he talks about.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: So the chapter of the book dealing specifically with Hebrews in the Biblical period, is showing images of people who are not Hebrews.
Got it!
Here is also the number to the national museum, Copenhagen (Denmark)
+45 33 13 44 11
Why don't you give them a call too while you're it it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Maybe you're just full of sh*# and failing at gaslighting
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Show me the name tags or hieroglyphs accompanying those models and saying they are Hebrews. At least the museum in Turin did not mention such a thing. One would think they would have mentioned it if there in fact were such nametags or hieroglyphs.
I shall also find out with the National museum.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yes, find out
Be sure to take screenshots of the emails and share them with us
Prove the author of the book wrong, and debunk him
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
You have still not shown any nametags or hieroglyphs belonging to any of the two models, showing that they are Hebrews. And the homepage of the model in Turin does not mention any Hebrews, only that it is a model of a bakery from the tomb of Ini. Not a word about Hebrews. And the books captions do not say that the people shown are Hebrews. It is your claim that the models show Hebrews. But you can not prove it.
You must learn to actually read what the captions say.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Both of those images can be found in the first chapter of the book, which is titled: "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
Common sense escapes you, and is replaced by cognitive dissonance
Have you contacted the museums yet? I'm not going to go back and forth with a dunce over something so trivial and obvious
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The chapters title do not prove these folks are Israelites. The captions in the books do not say they are Hebrews and the catalogues in the museums do not say a word about Hebrews,
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Oh, and I forgot to add -- the book is also called "Picture History of Jewish Civilization".
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Both of those images can be found in the first chapter of the book, which is titled: "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
Common sense escapes you, and is replaced by cognitive dissonance
Have you contacted the museums yet? I'm not going to go back and forth with a dunce over something so trivial and obvious
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Actually the granary are housed in the "Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek", Copenhagen, and it is from the tomb of GEMNI, Sakkara, c 1991-1962 BC. It is one of several models in the tomb, the other ones, among other things, depicting bakeries and breweries.
The texts about the grave and about the model do not mention any Hebrews. These kind of grave models are quite common in Egyptian tombs.
quote: The Granary
The Granary is a yellow building with two silos in an open courtyard. The grain is poured down through holes in the roof of the silos and eased out through hatches in the yard.
In the yard, two men measure grain in bushes, while one man counts how many times the bushes are filled and emptied. On one of the silos' roofs, the magazine manager stands with a scepter in his hand and monitors the work, and a writer sits with a plaster-covered writing board. He uses red and black ink, one pen sitting behind his ear while the other is in use. One has to imagine that the man who stands and counts bushes in the yard shouts numbers that the writer notes and counts together on his writing board. The red box is a kind of mobile office for accounts, papyrus, pen and ink. The assistant, who is sitting next to the printer, is probably with you to carry the box when the printer needs to move on to new tasks.
Three harvest workers drag grain sacks up onto the silo's roof and empty them down through the holes to the silo's interior. They go up the stairs to the roof of one silo and balance on a narrow walkway over the front door of the other silo. The grain, which lies around, was harvested on the banks of the Nile about 4000 years ago.
The model originates from Gemni's grave, where it has been found together with other grave models (ÆIN 1629 - ÆIN 1634). The idea is that the grain magazine will supply grain and perhaps also dates for the baking and brewing scenes, ÆIN 1629 and ÆIN 1632, so that Gemni can get bread and beer in his afterlife.
From the tomb of Gemni-em-hat at Sakkara. Acquired in 1923 from the Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte.
The tomb of the official Gemni-em-hat was found in 1921 by the English Egyptologist Cecil M. Firth, who worked for the Egyptian Antiquities Service. From here, in 1923, the Glyptotek acquired almost all of its rich burial equipment. The tomb was located north of King Tetis' pyramid in Sakkara and consisted of a burial chamber 8 meters below a mastaba of Nile mudstone, which, however, had perished. Only the blind door of the mastaba of limestone was preserved (ÆIN 1616). In the burial chamber stood a sarcophagus (ÆIN 1615) with Gemnis' mummy carrying a number of jewelery (ÆIN 1617-19) and a pair of amulets (ÆIN 1635, 1638). The sarcophagus also contained five sticks, two flash bows, a throwing tree, two pairs of sandals and a headrest (ÆIN 1620-24, 1637). At the end of the sarcophagus stood a canoe box with the mummy's embalmed entrails (ÆIN 1623). A large number of so-called grave models were stacked on top of the sarcophagus: a boat (ÆIN 1629), a grain warehouse (ÆIN 1630), a kitchen (ÆIN 1631), a brewery (ÆIN 1632), a workshop (1633), a spinning mill (ÆIN 1634 ). On the floor of the burial chamber, Firth found some model boats, which, however, were so dilapidated that they could not be preserved. A single grave model did not accompany the others to Copenhagen, but is today in the Cairo Museum (a barber and two cleaners).
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek is actually another museum than the National Museum proper. It is housed in another building. I have myself visited both these museums.
Not one of the museums mentions any Hebrews. And as I already stated, the captions in the book does not say these figures are Hebrews. Also no hieroglyphs or nametags describing those figures are mentioned.
Also if the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty, and what time. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews. He has not shown, or proved that the figures were Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Only one of the links you posted actually works.
Have you contacted the museum yet? We're tired of the excuses
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Oh, and I forgot to add -- the book is also called "Picture History of Jewish Civilization".
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Both of those images can be found in the first chapter of the book, which is titled: "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
Common sense escapes you, and is replaced by cognitive dissonance
Have you contacted the museums yet? I'm not going to go back and forth with a dunce over something so trivial and obvious
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It does not mention that those are Hebrews. I have presented the catalogue entries from both museusm, something that your author never did. Neither you or the author of the book have presented any evidence that those figures are Hebrews.
It seems you swallow all pictures of what you call "negroids" without any critical analyze at all, but if the figures had been light-skinned (as the sculpture head I posted) then you would have been much more critical.
I will not spend more time on your negro fantasies.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Only one of the links you posted actually works.
Have you contacted the museum yet? We're tired of the excuses
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Oh, and I forgot to add -- the book is also called "Picture History of Jewish Civilization".
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Both of those images can be found in the first chapter of the book, which is titled: "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
Common sense escapes you, and is replaced by cognitive dissonance
Have you contacted the museums yet? I'm not going to go back and forth with a dunce over something so trivial and obvious
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It does not mention that those are Hebrews. I have presented the catalogue entries from both museusm, something that your author never did. Neither you or the author of the book have presented any evidence that those figures are Hebrews.
It seems you swallow all pictures of what you call "negroids" without any critical analyze at all, but if the figures had been light-skinned (as the sculpture head I posted) then you would have been much more critical.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ]Originally posted by Tazarah:
When I click on the links they all work.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I thought you were going to contact the museum?
Stop crying, email them and "debunk" the author of the book.
Something told me to google him... I'm so glad I just googled him
ROFL
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The chapters title do not prove these folks are Israelites. The captions in the books do not say they are Hebrews and the catalogues in the museums do not say a word about Hebrews,
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I thought you were going to contact the museum?
Stop crying, email them and "debunk" the author of the book.
Something told me to google him... I'm so glad I just googled him
ROFL
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
His name in itself does not prove that the models are of Hebrews. He does not even mention which tombs the models are from and not how he reached the conclusion they were Hebrews.
Actually the captions never say they are Hebrews.
I can write a book about cats and have a picture of a dog in it. It does not prove that the dog is a cat.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ maybe the author didn't say they were Hebrews underneath the photos because he didn't think clownish idiots like you would ignore the fact that the book is literally titled "Picture History of Jewish Civilization", and the fact that the relevant photos are found in a chapter titled "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
Rofl.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You have better credentials and authority than an Israeli art historian huh?
Rofl
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Maybe he did not say it because he had no pictures of real Hebrews in Egyptian bakeries or granaries.
Maybe you should ask him. It is you who claim that those figures are Hebrews, so it is up to you to prove it.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
How does it feel to be in denial?
Rofl
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm not the one who claims they are Hebrews, he is. That's literally the title of his book and the chapter that the photos are in
Do better...
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The captions in the book do not say they are Hebrews and the catalogues in the museums do not say a word about Hebrews,
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
All I see from you are excuses
If I write a book titled "Different Birds From Around The World", do I need to clarify that each photo is a bird?
No.
The problem is you are a euronut, so seeing evidence that ancient Hebrews were black negroid people crushes you, breaks your heart and shatters all your false worldviews.
So now you're here crying and making excuses
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The captions in the book do not say they are Hebrews and the catalogues in the museums do not say a word about Hebrews,
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
And there is no law that all illustrations in a book about Hebrews must be of Hebrews. Sometimes pictures also of other people can help clarify things, as for example how the work in a bakery or granary is conducted.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Anyone can read the first chapter in context for themselves and see that its clearly talking about Hebrew people and demonstrating what life was like for them in Egypt
You're full of sh!# and you know it, that's why you refuse to actually contact the museums like how you originally said you would
Future readers will all laugh at your silly caucasoid delusions
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The captions in the book do not say they are Hebrews and the catalogues in the museums do not say a word about Hebrews,
If the author would actually make a claim that the models show Hebrews he would have named what tombs the models were from, and what dynasty. He would also have shown exactly how he reached the conclusion that the people in the models were Hebrews. But as of now he does not, and he does not say they are Hebrews.
And there is no law that all illustrations in a book about Hebrews must be of Hebrews. Sometimes pictures also of other people can help clarify things, as for example how the work in a bakery or granary is conducted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There is no known hieroglyph for a Hebrew, thus no depiction of a person in Egyptian art can be positively identified as a Hebrew
Also as far as a foreigner depicted in Egypt art, what language they spoke is also unknown at this point in time
This does not mean there there were or were not Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans in dynastic Egypt but it means no depiction of a person in Egyptian art can be positively identified as a Hebrew
Any book author that attempts to do so at this time is speculating not proving (which many authors have done)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You contact the museum(s) yet arch?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There is no known hieroglyph for a Hebrew, thus no depiction of a person in Egyptian art can be positively identified as a Hebrew
Also as far as a foreigner depicted in Egypt art, what language they spoke is also unknown at this point in time
This does not mean there there were or were not Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans in dynastic Egypt but it means no depiction of a person in Egyptian art can be positively identified as a Hebrew
Any book author that attempts to do so at this time is speculating not proving (which many authors have done)
I agree
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You contact the museum(s) yet arch?
I already read the museums documents about the models. Not a word about any Hebrews.
And did you read Lioness post? Did you understand it?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You contact the museum(s) yet arch?
I already read the museums documents about the models. Not a word about any Hebrews.
And did you read Lioness post? Did you understand it?
You have biases and have said things that I don't agree with and sometimes find offensive
Tazarah as well But I want to point out that in my experience dialoging with Tazarah is not productive even though I have made the mistake often. It is better to post contrary evidence without quoting him in a direct address
I say this because his goal is propaganda that he spreads on other sites and youtube. The goal is to find things in books that support his political position and then present them in these social media. The strategy is to persuade people to a particular point of view and impress upon them that the fact it is in a book must mean it's true. As soon as he find such a source, mission accomplished. No need to look at other sources
He doesn't care if another book or museum says something different, anything in a book, the fact that it is printed in a book gives it an appearance of credibility.
Once the propagandist finds a book supporting their point of view it doesn't matter how accurate it is, it doesn't matter if it is obsolete old research they then have a source that one can show to people can convince some of them of it.
To them it's like a gold coin they have, something that can convince a certain amount of people of.
Then if you suggest there is some other book or article that might contradict it, he doesn't care and encourages you to use up your time doing the work of looking further into it
And if you find evidence that contradicts his source or suggests some issue is uncertain he doesn't care. He already has his gold coin, he has printed in a book the point of view he wants to convey and has the power to convince a certain amount of people of the position.
He will continue trying to win a debate but that is not his main goal. His main goal is acquire things in books that support his political position to convince other people of it. These are his chips
What he's doing here with not so many other posters is to test for arguments against his political position so that on other sites he might anticipate counter arguments
Of course I'm like anybody else. I also try to persuade people of my interpretation. But I am constantly updating and considering other points of view. What I am not doing is going to other venues where I know there are people there with less knowledge and then knowingly try to spin and leave out things and sometimes outright lie and get away with it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You contact the museum(s) yet arch?
I already read the museums documents about the models. Not a word about any Hebrews.
And did you read Lioness post? Did you understand it?
So you lied when you said you were going to contact the museum, correct?
You instead hunted for a new excuse to fall back on because you're a gaslighter
You're full of sh!# and you know it, I'll take the word of this guy over yours anyday
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I hold the same opinion of the Lyingness that the people in the following screenshot do
I also have handfuls of sceenshots of her lying, contradicting herself and intentionally misrepresenting historical sources and information
The fact that you are leaning on her for support is comedy but what else is expected at this point
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The following quote is of a comment that the Lyingness made in one of my threads that she tried to derail
The topic was the black portuguese Jews and their skin color. I highlighted a portion of a source which juxtaposes their blackness to that of negroes, and it also says they did not intermarry. Meaning they were already black
The Lyingness then responds by highlighting a completely different part of the page to "refute" the part I highlighted, and she says my own source debunks my claims
Your own sources keep debunking your own claims Once again they are talking not about Portugal but instead far away colonies of Portugal
And again the topic here is "INTERMARRIAGE" "between Natives and Portuguese"
"hybrid race"
and a key quote here, said to from 1639 by Johan Albrecht de Mandelslo who visted Goa in India and remarked about such intermarriage:
"in the third generation become as black as the natives of the country."
So obviously when William Winwood Reade traveled to Sao Tome in 1862 and said "I could detect no relic of the Jewish type: which is decidedly providential; for a union of the Jew and the Negro would be, commercially speaking, dangerous to Christianity"
That this is what he was observing in arriving generations later
So we can easily see the pattern here. European colonists settle in another continent and intermarry with locals - if they don't keep migrating there in substantial numbers but people in neighboring areas do, after a few generations they are for want of a better term "bred out" by the conditions of the situation
So again, the lesson is if you want Jews in Portugal to be black you need to look at Portuguese history not in their far off colonies surrounded by people not Portuguese
As I stated before one doesn't have to leave Africa and go to Portugal to find the Moroccan Jews with a history far before the Spanish and Portuguese exploitations of Africa
It's twisted how you would want the very Christian and Jewish "pioneers" of the trans Atlantic slave trade to be black
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
But upon actually reading the text, we find that the Lyingness is conflating two completely different paragraphs of the page in order to push a false narrative.
The page clearly says the black portuguese Jews did not intermarry, and thus were not hybrids; as the Lyingness tried to lie and make it seem.
The portion of the page the Lyingness highlighted was talking about a completely different group of people.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ so is this your hero, arch? A lying pseudo?
I have plenty more screenshots too...
Now I see why you are afraid to contact the museum
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The hair is painted on with texture type not indicted I see nothing to suggest that this is not an Egyptian but one can do further research the Tomb of Ini, I did a little, not much available
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Another screenshot of the Lyingness attacking me with false accusations
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The hair is painted on with texture type not indicted I see nothing to suggest that this is not an Egyptian but one can do further research the Tomb of Ini, I did a little, not much available
I agree, there is nothing in the descriptions on the museums page that in implies that these figures are not Egyptians. The word "Hebrew" is not mentioned at all, neither in the description of the model from the tomb of Ini, or in the descriptions of the model from the tomb of Gemni. There are several different artifacts described from the tomb of Gemni, among them some models. I do not see anything that implies that they depict anything else than Egyptians.
quote: The baking, brewing and slaughter scene originates from Gemni's grave, where it has been found together with several other grave models. The idea is that the little characters should replace real people and provide the deceased with bread and beer as well as beef and poultry so he does not suffer distress in his afterlife
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The granary from the tomb of Gemni and the description from the museum
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You contact the museum(s) yet arch?
I already read the museums documents about the models. Not a word about any Hebrews.
And did you read Lioness post? Did you understand it?
So you lied when you said you were going to contact the museum, correct?
You instead hunted for a new excuse to fall back on because you're a gaslighter
You're full of sh!# and you know it, I'll take the word of this guy over yours anyday
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Wait, so you're saying you believe the negroid people are Egyptians?
The Egyptians had Egyptians as slaves?
My god.
Arch has lost his mind (again)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm going to write a book titled "Picture History of Greek Civilization",
And I'm going to title chapter one "Grecians in the Greek era"
But I'm not going to put any photos of Greek people in there
I will put photos of Hawaiians though
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well you can start with showing me the name tags or hieroglyphs accompanying those models and saying they are Hebrews. Or you can show me the text from the museums saying they are Hebrews.
So no Egyptians ever worked in bakeries or granaries? Not one single Egyptian during all the ancient Egyptian culture lasted?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well you can start with showing me the name tags or hieroglyphs accompanying those models and saying they are Hebrews. Or you can show me the text from the museums saying they are Hebrews.
So no Egyptians ever worked in bakeries or granaries?
In order to avoid that the black/negroid slaves depicted are Hebrews, arch is instead taking the pseudo path of claiming the ancient Egyptians enslaved their own people
Rofl
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
So all people working in granaries or bakeries were always slaves? What about farmers, or scribes or stonecutters, or any other workers where they also always slaves? Did no Egyptians ever conduct any work?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well to summon, the museums descriptions do not say a word about Hebrews in regards to the models discussed here. And the author of the book does not say in his captions to the pictures of a bakery and a granary that the people modelled are Hebrews. All the rest is in Tazarahs fantasies.
He has a political agenda and he does not care about facts.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
And of course he is too lazy to ask the museums himself, he wants others to do his job. It is he who claims those people are Hebrews so it is up to him to prove it.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So all people working in granaries or bakeries were always slaves? What about farmers, or scribes or stonecutters, or any other workers where they also always slaves? Did no Egyptians ever conduct any work?
Do you know what a taskmaster is? Why would farmers or any of the other people you mentioned need a taskmaster over them?
Rofl
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
A book titled "Picture History of Jewish Civilization", a chapter titled "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period".....
But the photos included are non-Hebrews because arch doesn't like the captions
Rofl
Let me know when you contact the museum
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Even in todays workplaces there are people who lead the work without people working there being slaves. It is just a way to organize work. Have you ever been to a work place?
You have just no evidence at all those peoples were Hebrew slaves, it is in your fantasy.
Show me the hieroglyphs or texts stating those people were Hebrews, You have not showed any proof, not even the book claims those people were Hebrews.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: A book titled "Picture History of Jewish Civilization", a chapter titled "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period".....
But the photos included are non-Hebrews because arch doesn't like the captions
Rofl
Let me know when you contact the museum
Show me the hieroglyphs or texts stating those people were Hebrews, You have not showed any proof, not even the book claims those people were Hebrews.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
And the museums do not claim it either
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ So arch doesn't know what egyptian taskmasters were. LOL!
And next,
You will be claiming books about cars do not actually have photos of cars in them
So long as it furthers your delusonal narrative
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Show me the hieroglyphs or texts stating those people were Hebrews, You have not showed any proof, not even the book claims those people were Hebrews.
And the museum texts do not mention anything about Hebrews either.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Ancient Egyptian farmers had taskmasters over them eh arch?
Rofl
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Slaves could be Egyptians too, not all slaves were foreigners:
quote: Local Egyptians also often entered into slavery due to an unstable economy and debts which could force people into servitude. Officials who abused their power could also be reduced to slavery
The tomb of Ini with the bakery is from the first intermediate period when:
quote: During the First Intermediate Period, slaves were first defined as men with dignity but remained treated as property. When borrowed money owed to wealthier individuals in Egyptian society could not be paid back, family members were sold in return into slavery - especially women. During the Middle Kingdom, records show that coerced laborers included conscripts (hsbw), fugitives (tsjw), and royal laborers (hmw-nsw).
So nothing says those figures were Hebrews or even foreigners. There were Egyptians in different kinds of servitude too. If they at all were slaves. You can not prove that either.
And there are of course no hieroglyphs, texts or anything in the documents from the museums that imply those people were Hebrews.
If it could be shown they were Hebrews the museums would have mentioned it. They do not, and the book in the captions do not state it either. It is just your assumption.
There are many such models in Egyptian tombs. Were they all Hebrews?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Since there are no models in ancient Egyptian art that with certainty show Hebrews the author just had to take a couple of scenes to illustrate the industries he talks about. Is that so hard to grasp?
If you want to prove that those figures are Hebrews it is up to you to show the hieroglyphs or texts stating they were Hebrews. If you can not do that you have not proved anything.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
----
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch is quoting quotes without sources and presenting them as fact. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch isn't going to contact the museum like how he said he was
He's instead going to spend his time attempting to gaslight Tazarah on ES
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Fity7:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, one thing is for sure, the ancient Israelites did not look like this. They would have looked like other Levantines and Middle Easterners. Black ("negroid") ancient Israelites in the Levant is just a black-centric fantasy.
LOL nice job. I’d be spamming ancient Egyptian caucasoid mummies and Hebrew depictions vs Sub Saharan depictions side by side but it’s a real pain on this site.
Truth is they Never can explain the depictions that alone proves they submitted to you/me and all they can do is whine and be triggered.
This is almost comical. What will the excuses be now?
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Another screenshot of the Lyingness attacking me with false accusations
Extremely off topic. Better you find the hieroglyphs or texts that proves that the figures in the models are Hebrews.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch is now crying about "off topic" posts when he knows good and well he tried to derail one of my threads with off topic posts
Comedy
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Taz can not prove that the models depict Hebrews, Because of that he goes off topic and starts to spam the thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
[URL=https://imgbox.com/df5qHSzH] Egyptian workers at a bakery, page 16 text above not talking Abraham and so on, nothing about bread making or wooden models
page 14 upper photo a decorated chest belonging to Tutankhamun. on this side depicting the king in a chariot attacking Nubians The caption mentions Hyksos had introduced the chariot, a "wagon" the author calls it
page 14 lower picture, Egyptian workers loading a ship with grain
15: a couple of steles (tombstone shaped wooden slabs mainly to show a text but figures also) The author calls them "Tomb paintings" but doesn't mention the name of the tomb or which steles they are
As we can see the on the text on these pages mentioning Abraham and various history is not closely related at all to the pictures If just this one page was shown to somebody it could be used to trick people on other website forums into thinking that the photo is depicting Hebrews but if you read the text closely it says nothing about bread making or anything in the photo of the wooden model. And if you look at the earlier pages you see more of the same, that the pictures are not closely related to the text and depict Nubians and Egyptians. The author of the book did not claim these figures are Hebrews or might be Hebrews, otherwise he would have said that in the caption. I have seen many other similar looking Egyptian workers although they also used Asiatic and Nubian workers sometimes. You have to read the chapter form the beginning to get a sense of how the book is laid out. It more the story of the Jews often not an examination of each picture
As we can see Getty images doesn't call them Hebrews, the author Bezalel Narkiss doesn't say they are Hebrews and there are many images in the same chapter that are not of Hebrews. The one who is claiming they are Hebrews is doing time wasting trolling and trying to use the book page to try to trick people. And if anybody claims they are anything other than Egyptian the burden of proof is on them to contact a museum or some other source to support that claim. I would not be saying this if Bezalel Narkiss had captioned the photo "Hebrew workers (or slaves) making bread"
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ the images in that chapter that aren't Hebrews, have a caption explaining exactly who they are. That's how we know those other images are not Hebrews
If you want to go by what they are not called, when the context of the chapter is extremely clear, then go ahead and be pseudo, it surprises no one at this point
You're the same pseudo clown who lied and said the black afro-like hair of a negroid angel in another painting was a "halo"
Lyingness the troll has no credibility when it comes to things that actually matter and we all know this already
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Taz can not prove that the models depict Hebrews, Because of that he goes off topic and starts to spam the thread.
Were you looking in a mirror when you typed this? Spamming threads and going off topic is your specialty
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: As we can see the on the text on these pages mentioning Abraham and various history is not closely related at all to the pictures If just this one page was shown to somebody it could be used to trick people on other website forums into thinking that the photo is depicting Hebrews but if you read the text closely it says nothing about bread making or anything in the photo of the wooden model.
What an incompetent idiot, thank you for demonstrating for the thousandth time that you don't know how to read and/or have poor knowledge of Biblical history
The text on the page is LITERALLY telling the story of the Hebrews and the author is showing different photos of them to go along with the story
The text above the photo of the black people making bread in Egypt literally says about Abraham:
"A deep sleep fell upon him and filtering through the mist of a great distance he heard the voice of God telling him that his descendants would live as strangers in a foreign land where they would remain in bondage for four hundred years 'And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither,' God promised, assuring the land of Canaan to his offspring."
^^^ the text on the page RIGHT ABOVE THE PHOTO is literally talking about how the Hebrews were going to be slaves in Egypt, and how they would return to the land of Canaan afterward
But you, with your demented pseudo logic, would love to have people believe the author just randomly threw in a photo of some random black people making bread in Egypt, in slave clothing
LOL
Then the VERY NEXT PHOTO after them making bread shows the Sinai desert, the desert the Hebrews traveled through to get to Canaan after they were delivered from Egypt
That photo is on the next page but you can clearly see the caption for it next to the caption of them making bread
And the caption for that photo says:
"In the Sinai desert. The Jews wandered in the wilderness for forty years until they reached the borders of the land promised to them since the days of Abahram..."
context is key, you idiot. Learn to use it, stop trolling and trying to deceive people. You aren't even good at it Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Here we have pages 14, 15 and 16 from the chapter titled "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period"
from the book
Picture History of Jewish Civilization Bezalel Narkiss (1970).
As we can see all three pages in this chapter called "The Hebrews in the Biblical Period" have images of well known artifacts that do not depict Hebrews, nor are they captioned or claimed by the author Bezalel Narkiss to be Hebrews or even other Asiatics on these three pages despite the text n those pages talking about Hebrews
Therefore none of these images should have been posted in this thread, it's trolling just like posting Elamites and calling them figures from Lachish is false
This comes from poor research skills not verify the provenance of a particular article from multiple sources
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I repeat: the images that are not Hebrews in the book, are clearly identified as non-Hebrews.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ the images in that chapter that aren't Hebrews, have a caption explaining exactly who they are. That's how we know those other images are not Hebrews
If you want to go by what they are not called, when the context of the chapter is extremely clear, then go ahead and be pseudo, it surprises no one at this point
You're the same pseudo clown who lied and said the black afro-like hair of a negroid angel in another painting was a "halo"
Lyingness the troll has no credibility when it comes to things that actually matter and we all know this already
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^^^ the Lyingness lied and said the text on the page does not say anything related to the topic of Hebrews being slaves in Egypt, yet it does and I clearly pointed that out
The text right above the photo of the slaves making bread in Egypt talks about the ancient Hebrews being slaves in Egypt for 400 years
Multiple other screenshots of the Lyingness lying and intentionally misrepresenting other historical sources have also been provided earlier on this page of this thread, all anyone has to do is scroll up and see for themselves
Lyingness is such a trustworthy individual. I'm sure everyone takes them seriously
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
also we have a troll here not spelling people's names right, trying to instigate trash talk to justify their existence
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
That name fits you better
You are on record of having a nasty habit of lying about what books actually say
If everyone on the site were to take a vote as to who is an actual troll I guarantee you would defeat me
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If so is this based on 9 bows text specific to Seti I text?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Gem2 (Member # 23593) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The hair is not necessarily "extremely tight" or "nappy" Show a photo of somebody with a beard like this that resembles balls somewhere between the size a of a marble or round grape
___________________________________________
I don't see that form here. Their beards have a finer bushy texture rather than separate round shapes like that
This is amazing. It single handedly destroys any misinformation.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A seven-inch-tall and 3800 years old clay figurine of a pensive man attached to a Middle Bronze Age pot unearthed in the central Israel town Yehud
(Picture from Archaeology Magazine)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Got an answer from Ny Carlsbergs Glyptotek regarding if the people in the granary from the tomb of Gemni were Hebrews or not. As I expected there is nothing that indicates that they are Hebrews.
quote: Dear xxxxx Sorry for this late answer. I am the Egyptologist at the Glyptotek and your question was forwarded to me.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the people shown in the model ÆIN 1630 from the tomb of Gemni should be Hebrews. Or at the time of Gemni in the beginning of the Middle Kingdom the neighbours of Egypt to the north would be called 'aamu' normally translated as Asiatics (not as in the Far East, but what we call the Middle East today). The scribe in the model is writing down how much grain it carried to the granary and that is in hieratic hieroglyphs and there is no reason why all the people should not be Egyptian.
Hope this helps your discussion.
Best wishes, Tine
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
--
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
^ great. So it's been supposedly confirmed that they are not Hebrews; but Egyptians. Egyptians with black puffy/woolly afros, dark brown skin, and who are clearly negroid.
Moses was mistaken as being an Egyptian (Exodus 2:19-21), as was Paul (Acts 21:38-39), as well as Joseph and other Israelites (Genesis 50:11-14).
So you still lose.
Funny how things always work out in favor of the truth.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
No it is is you who lost, since you stubbornly claimed they were Hebrews. Just admit you were wrong.
Do not derail this thread, so I will not post all my pictures in your thread.
All these wooden sculptures of ancient Egyptians look rather alike, these you posted are not very different from many others.
The pictures show brown people but not necessarily negroid. Seems you do not understand that all brown people are not negroes.
The Afros are just in your imagination, especially the bakery you posted, they just have black color painted on their heads without any recognizable features,
About the story of Moses, it is written hundreds of years after the events took place (if they took place). Maybe you believe in the Iliad and Odyssé too, literally?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
---
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I asked you to contact the museum, and I was proven wrong -- they supposedly are not Hebrews according to the information we currently have available and there is no denying that.
But the person you contacted has said these people are Egyptians, and Israelites were always mistaken as being Egyptians.
The people in this model who your contact identified as being Egyptian are clearly negroid and the bushy/woolly afros are no figment of the imagination. Their skin is darker than mine and their hair is even nappier and bushier than mine, there is no mistaking that these are afros or negroid people.
Your argument never denied that they were negroid until it was confirmed that they are Egyptians, and you have to now deny they are negroid because them being negroid still proves that the Hebrews were also negroid since they were physically identical.
You get so triggered when I post information about black Jews, your emotions cause you to create counter threads and vent to yourself when you aren't allowed to derail my own threads.
Look at you, spamming the same images over and over like how you accuse me of doing.
You're even threatening to derail my thread with your spammed images.
And I'm not derailing your thread, I'm responding to on topic statements/arguments that were made in an ongoing dialogue between you and I in this thread.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
---------
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
---
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: About the story of Moses, it is written hundreds of years after the events took place (if they took place). Maybe you believe in the Iliad and Odyssé too, literally?
Now you're even going as far as trying to discredit the actual Torah/Bible because it doesn't support your position
Yet you have no problem referencing pseudepigraphical (unauthentic) "Bible" writings such as the "genesis apocryphon" because it says that Sarah, Abraham's wife, had "white skin"
Pretty hypocritical and contradictory. At this point it's all a huge joke
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Everything I've said is on topic and directly related to the ongoing discussion that already existed in this thread.
You derailing my thread with images not related to the topic would be the literal definition of trolling
Threatening to derail my thread simply because I'm responding to an ongoing discussion between you and I in this thread just goes to show how childish and emotional you are
I'm not surprised
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Maybe the Bible is true for you, but it is not true for millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, atheists and so on.
If you believe in Old testamennt you also must believe in the Iliad and the Odyssé since they are relatively close in time and also geographically not so far.
Even sources outside the Bible can tell you about some peoples preferences in Biblical times. It is totally irrelevant if those books are in the Bible or not. They still tell us a lot about the time they were written in and about the preferences of it´s authors.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here are some later pictures of people in what is today Israel, from the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Jews in Jerusalem 1860
One of the earliest photographs of Jews praying at the Western Wall of Herod's Temple, 1870s.
Jews from Ottoman time, 1895
The funeral of a rabbi in Jerusalem, 1903
Samaritan, 1905
Here are some images of other Jews
Yemenitic Jews from the 1800s, and from 1901
Maroccan Jews, 1900
Iraqi Jews
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Some more photos:
Sephardic Jew, 1893
"Moorish" Jew, between 1900 and 1920
Spanish Jew in Jerusalem, 1921
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So you don't believe in the actual Bible because it doesn't support your position but you instead reference and cling to fake Biblical writings, like the "genesis apocryphon" because it talks about "white skin"?
Lol I'll leave you alone now. Just wanted to clarify.
At this point it's undoubtedly clear that you are not a rational individual, and you are definitely trying to push an agenda.
Feel free to proceed and continue spam posting your images.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well, I try to judge ancient scriptures objectively, I am not bound by any special religious doctrine.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Objectively judging unauthentic writings about Biblical characters that scholars admit have nothing to do with the actual Bible?
My God
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The writings are not unauthentic, they are indeed old. If they are not in the Bible is irrelevant, most part of the worlds literature is not in the Bible, but is still studied by scholars of a multitude of disciplines.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), also called the Tales of the Patriarchs or the Apocalypse of Lamech and labeled 1QapGen,[1] is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls
It is a real ancient text, ie it is not unauthentic.
It is irrelevant, it is still a text which tell us something about the time it is written in. There are many ancient texts that are either anonyumus or designated a name that is not the authors true name. It does not diminish it´s value as a source about it´s own time and eventual preferences and thoughts. If these texts were useless why have scholars studied them since 1948 and written a multitude of thesis and artikels about them?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
All texts say something about the time they are written in, and about the author who wrote them, even the simplest pamphlets can have historical or ideohistorical value.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
But... you were just trying to discredit the actual Torah/Bible while giving more credit to these unauthentic writings about the Bible. That's the point I'm making. So it's not irrelevant.
The actual Bible says white skin is leprosy by the way.
NUMBERS 12:10
"10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous."
The Torah/Bible was written by ACTUAL ANCIENT ISRAELITES...
I know I said I was done responding but it didn't seem like you were comprehending the point I was making. I'm really done now.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Just because a book is official nothing says it is more true than an alternative source. Even a letter found in a desert can be more true than a certain passage in the Bible.
According to you no Jews could think a white or pale woman was beautiful? Just because the Bible told a story in another context?
I am sure also some ancient Jews could think outside the box and did not sheepish repeat everything they read in the Bible.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The actual Bible says white skin is leprosy by the way.
NUMBERS 12:10
"10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous."
The Torah/Bible was written by ACTUAL ANCIENT ISRAELITES...
I know I said I was done responding but it didn't seem like you were comprehending the point I was making. I'm really done now. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
The actual Bible says white skin is leprosy by the way.
No it doesn't, that is your racist spin on it. White Europeans are not snow white in color and neither is your own skin literally black.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Some other Jews
Old Jewish woman in Cairo, 1882
Jewish quarters in Alexandria, 1898
Egyptian Jew, 20th century
Jews in Tunisia, c 1900
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No it doesn't, that is your racist spin on it. White Europeans are not snow white in color and neither is your own skin literally black.
This is funny, especially coming from someone who does not even believe in the Bible and has clearly never read it in their life.
Better go tell the people who run this jewish website that they're racist.
Anybody can make a website. You or I could make a website looking exactly like this one. Who owns this website? I can't find any information on it, seems to be a secret. You are saying that in the bible when the say black they are referring to people matching the top left circle and white, the top right circle, ok fine we'll work with that
The above website makes reference to Song of Solomon 1:5
quote: Song of Solomon 1:5-6
5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
So the bride here is pointing out she is black and going out of her way to point that out must mean that most people in the place where she was were not black. For instance if you read a Nigerian news story about an unidentified man doing something you assume he was a black man because it's in Nigeria. They don't bother saying that, it's taken for granted. However if he was white or Asian they might mention it because he was not the typical man in Nigeria.
The bride here in Song of Solomon goes out of her way to point out that she is black and she also points out she is attractive, "comely" "black but" she says This suggests that to the people she is talking to "black" is not innately attractive but she is an exception, what she is conveying
She goes further and says "Look not upon me because I am black" In other words, don't judge me because I am black. So obviously she is not in a place where most people are black
Elsewhere in the bible, in Exodus, Miriam is Moses’ older sister. Miriam and her brother, racists, later criticize Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman but God got mad about this because he had hand picked Moses to be his prophet. As punishment he gave Miriam leprosy.
quote: Numbers 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous
So he didn't simply turn her white as snow, he gave her leprosy
Who knows if Miriam was a real person or fictional but we can see from the story she would not have resembled an Ethiopian. Above a random Palestinian woman compared to snow white.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@the lioness
So you agree that the jewish website says white skin = sin according to the Bible, correct? And that it isn't just something Tazarah made up because he is racist.
Would you like another source saying the same thing? Or are you just going to make another excuse about that too.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Lioness" doesn't even read the Bible but wants to lecture and teach people about the Bible
You don't know jack about the Bible. And you just rejected a jewish source because it debunked you
LOL get real
There are plenty of scriptures that describe the Israelites as black, and your nazi interpretation of song of solomon proves nothing.
Where did you find that song of solomon break down at, on stormfront?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yes, the same website makes reference to the Song of Solomon. It says:
"And the bride of the Song of Solomon, often regarded as a type of the Church, was black as well (Song of Solomon 1:5)."
It says the "bride" is often regarded as the church. And it says the bride (church) is black.
The first and original church was none other than the Israelites. Therefore, that verse proves the Israelites themselves were black.
If you don't read the Bible then just leave it alone to avoid making yourself look silly.
ACTS 7:38
"38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: @the lioness
So you agree that the jewish website says white skin = sin according to the Bible, correct? And that it isn't just something Tazarah made up because he is racist.
Would you like another source saying the same thing? Or are you just going to make another excuse about that too.
"Jewish website" is no more credible than "random website" written by some anonymous person
Yes I agree the website says "whiteness is associated with sin" That is one opinion of random website and there are millions more websites with their own opinions, so the fact that this is on a website lends no credibility. This is another example of your belief, that if text is written in a book or on a website (excluding forum comments) it's true. You seem to have no discernment to at least find a site where the authors and their backgrounds are listed and if they have any scholarly credentials
And your interpretation is that "white as snow" refers to the "white race"
I don't need to look at any website We can go to the source, this mythological psuedo book, the bible, that speaks of magical things that never happened But it does not say this:
And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became a white woman.
^^ this is idiotic
what it actually says is this >
Numbers 12:10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous.
If "Gd" wanted to turn her white he would have turned her white and there would be no need for the word "leprous" to be twice in the verse
Again, put on your thinking cap giving her leprosy was punishment for her making racist comment about Moses having a black wife and she was the sister of Moses
So that means she and Moses were not black (assuming they existed)
This is not to say they were as light as Europeans. Their skin color probably resembled the average Arab
I don't think God was very wise in giving her leprosy a much better lesson would be to have turned her black (dark brown technically)
Some people are of the mindset that people are either black or white, one or the other. It's simpleminded
I give God points here, however for punishing racism. However this theme themes seems not to have been reiterated in the bible enough to instill the point more deeply, as we see people a few thousand years later still don't get it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
1. "Lioness" is making excuses to reject sources and information that prove them wrong, instead of admitting that they are wrong.
2. "Lioness" fails to understand that white skin IS leprosy according to the Bible. The verse literally says so. The Bible explains that X person became a leper, and then explains how: by becoming white.
Claiming that the Bible doesn't say "white woman" is a retarded strawman argument that one should expect from the likes of "lioness" especially considering the fact that they know nothing about the Bible but still want to talk about it.
3. "Lioness" completely ignored the fact that Song of Solomon proves the Israelites were black, as do a multitude of other scriptures.
LAMENTATIONS 5:10
"10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine."
JOB 30:30
"30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat."
LAMENTATIONS 4:8
"8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
LAMENTATIONS 5:10
"10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine."
people that are naturally black don't attribute it to famine
fail
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: people that are naturally black don't attribute it to famine
fail
This is the problem with people who don't read the Bible or know anything about the Bible but still try to talk about it
First of all, you picked the one verse out of the three that you felt you could manipulate
Second of all, "because of the famine" isn't literally saying they turned black because of the famine
*** Hitler was starving so-called jewish people to death in camps and not a single one of them developed black skin
Fail
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A rather interesting coin probably from Israel during Persian rule. It has been claimed to depict Yahweh himself.
The silver 'British Museum drachm', known since 1814, but with unknown provenance. It was probably struck by the Persian administration in Israel in the first quarter of the 4th century BCE. The coin shows a deity seated on a winged wheel, often interpreted as a depiction of Yahweh (Yahu).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Never saw that coin before! Totally a Hebrew nose lol
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
