EgyptSearch Forums: Tehenu Ancient Black Libyans

This is topic Tehenu Ancient Black Libyans in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

The use of different names to describe the Tehenu and Asian in the Ramses III Table of Nations is understood in relation to the political and ethnic conditions in Egypt and Western Asia during this period. The research appears to indicate that the physiognomy of the Libyans had changed by this time . This resulted , for the most part from the invasion of Egypt by Sea Peoples in association with the Libu (Libyans).

The figures on Ramses III Table of nations are associated with the nations Ramses was dealing with iduring his reign. The Libyans attacked Egypt during the 5th and 11th years of Ramses III's reign. Beginning around 1230 Sea People began to attack Egypt. In 1180 Ramses III had his decisive battle with the Libyans. Among the warriors fighting with the Libu were Sea People.

Ramses III made multiple versions of his campaigns against the Libyans. To understand the naming method for Ramses III Table of Nations you have to understand that the term Tehenu was a generic term applied to the Libyans, who by this time were mixed with Palestinian-Syrian people
(who were descendants of the Gutians), and People of the Sea (Indo-Europeans).

The attack against Egypt in 1188 was a coalition of tribal groups led by the Meshwesh, who are believed to be a Tamehu nationality. As a result, we find that the Meshwesh were referred to as Tehenu\Tamehu. This may not be correct because the Meshwesh are not mention in Egyptian text until the 14th Century BC.

The members of the coalition were led by Meshesher the wr 'ruler' of the coalition.Each group was led by a "great one" or a magnate. The Meshwesh were semi-nomads that lived both in villages and dmi'w 'towns'.The Tehenu lived in the Delta between the Temehu and the Egyptians. The Egyptians referred to all of the people in this area most often by the generic tern "Tehenu".

The TjemhuTemehu which included the Meshwesh controled an area from Cyrenaica to Syria. As a result, in textual material from the reign of Ramses II, there is mention of Temehu towns in Syria. David O'Connor makes it clear that Ramses III referred to these Temehu by the term Tehenu/Tjehnyu (p.64).

The Temehu were very hostile to the Tehenu/Tjehnya. In fact, the first mention of the Meshwesh in Ramses III inscriptions relating to 1188, was the attack of the Tehenu, by the Meshwqesh, Soped and Sea People . David O'Connor makes it clear that the the records of Ramses III make it clear that the Meshweshy "savagely" attacked the Tehenu and looted their cities during their advance to Egypt (p.35 & 105).

The coalition of the Meshweshy had each unit of the army organized into "family or tribal ' units under the leadership of a "great one". As result to understand why the fAsian and Tehenu figures on the Table of Nations are identified differently you have use both the pictorical and textual material from the reign of Ramses III to understand the representations. As a result, Palestianian -Syrian personage or figure D, is labled Tehenu because he was probably a member of one Meshwesh units, thus he was labled Tehenu. The personage that is second from the Egyptians which is labled an Asian, eventhough he is clearly a Tehenu, was probably a member of a Syrian Palestinian unit when he was captured by the Egyptians thusly he was labled Asian. You can find out more about this reality if you check out: David O'Connor, "The nature of Tjemhu (Libyan) society in later New Kingdom; in Libya and Egypt c1300-750 BC, (Ed.) by Athony Leahy (pp.29-113), SOAS Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies, 1990.

In the Table of Nation figure B we see the traditional depiction of a Tehenu, the sidelock, shoulder cape and clean face. The Temehu, called Meshwesh are different from the Tehenu and the original Tamehu recorded by the Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom. Below is a Meshwesh

The Meshwesh wore Tehenu traditional costumes but they are not believed to be real Tehenu. The Tehenu and the Temehu usually wore different costumes. In the New Kingdom depictions of the Temehu, the Meshwesh have "long chin beards", like the Syrian-Palestinians and Peoples of the Sea. They wear kilts, sheaths and capes open at the front tied at one shoulder. Like the earlier Tehenu they wore feathers as a sign of High Status.

David O'Connor makes it clear that there was "marked hetergeneity of the Tjemhu" (p.41).
The first attack by Libyans on Egypt were led by the Libu during the 5th year of Ramses III's reign. Diop has provided convincing evidence that the Libu, later migrated into Senegal, where they presenly live near Cape Verde

The difference in dress among the Meshwesh and their hostility toward the Tehenu, have led many researchers to see the Temehu of the New Kingdom as a different group from the original Temehu of Egyptian traditions. O'Connor (p.74) in the work cited above makes it clear that the Temehu in Ramses III day--"[have] hairstyles, dress and apparently ethnic type [that] are markedly different from the Tjehnyu/tjemhu of the Old Kingdom (Osing, 1980,1018-19). Various explanations have been offered: Wainwright, for example, concluded that 'Meshwesh was a mixed tribe of Libu like tribesmen with their native chiefs who become subject to a family of Tjehnu origin'(1962,p.92), while Osing suggested that the New Kingdowm Tjemhu had displaced or absorbed the earlier Tjehnyu but had selectively taken over or retained some Tjehnyu traits, in the case of the rulers for Meshwesh (1980,1019-1020). Dr. O'Connor is of the opinion "that some rulers of the later New Kingdom Tjemhu deliberately adopted traits they discovered from the Egyptians to be charcteristic of ancient Tjehnyu/Tjemhu, so as to increase there prestige, or in some way had these traits imposed upon them by the Egyptians" (p.74).

It is my opinion that given the organiztion of the Libyans into mhwt "family or tribal groups', sometime prior to 1230 BC over an extended period of time Indo-European speaking people later to be known as Peoples of the Sea entered Western Asia and Libya and were adopted by Tehenu families. This adoption of the new immigrants by Tehenu/Tamehu probably led to the Meshwesh and Soped adopting Tehenu customs but maintaining their traditional beards,. The original Temehu, like the Libu probably saw the integration of Sea Peoples into Temehu society as a way to increase their number and possibily conquer Egypt. It is interesting to note that the Meshwesh were very sure they might be able to conquor the Egyptians because they brought their cattle and other animals with them when they invaded the country. Moreover whereas the Meshwesh, were semi-nomadic, the Sea Peoples: Akawashu, Lukki, Tursha., Sheklesh, and Sherden remained nomadic. and used the spear and round shield.

The Nehasyu were ancient members of the Tehenu/Temehu. This would explain the reason why the Meshwesh and Nehasyu were mainly bowman.

In conclusion, the names for the personages in the Table of Nations from Ramses III tomb were labled correctly. These personages were recorded in the the Tables based on the military and family units were attached too, not the country identifiable by their dress.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

Very interesting post!

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

This belongs in the Maghreb thread which is trying to keep all this
kind of info together in one place for easy reference.

Posted by Thought2 (Member # 4256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
This belongs in the Maghreb thread which is trying to keep all this
kind of info together in one place for easy reference.

Thought Writes:

Why would this belong in the Maghreb thread?

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

As it is an excursion in identifying various "eastern Libyans" it very
much relates to the Maghreb thread. See there the definition of Maghreb.

quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
This belongs in the Maghreb thread which is trying to keep all this
kind of info together in one place for easy reference.
Thought Writes:

Why would this belong in the Maghreb thread?

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

There were two groups right? The Libou/Tamahou and the Tehenu.

Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :

Greetings

Sheklesh Sea Peoples

Harris Papyrus (Pritchard 1969: 261):

See! I (Ramessess III) destroyed them and slew them at one stroke. I overthrew them,

felled them in their own blood, and turned them into heaps of corpses. I turned them
back from treading the frontier of Egypt…I brought the rest…as numerous
prisoners, pinioned like fowl before my horses, and their wives and children by tens
of thousands.

VERY INTERESTING POST!

Hotep

Posted by Thought2 (Member # 4256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
As it is an excursion in identifying various "eastern Libyans" it very
much relates to the Maghreb thread. See there the definition of Maghreb.

Thought Writes:

These "Libyans" are from NE Africa NOT the Maghreb : NW Africa.

Thought Posts:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ma·ghreb or Ma·ghrib (mgrb) KEY

A region of northwest Africa comprising the coastlands and the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :

...keep in mind that most people continue to make the mistake of not translating the Mdu Ntr words for these ethnic groups into their exact meanings; which I think leads to confusion; add nauseum...

Namou Sho > Nam=traveler - ou=people - Sho=sands;
"people who travel the sands" - Nomads who are pictorially shown to be Asiatic.

Tamh > hematite; ochre; reddish > Tamhou Red ones - What today we refer to as White people.

Tehenn = "sparkling", "dazzling", "Egyptian Faience (an opaque glaze, usually strong greenish blue)"
Tehennu = "sparkling or dazzling or bright blue ones/people"; portrayed pictorially as Blacks

and so on and so forth.

It's all explained by the Mdu Ntr...

Posted by Senkhemdjed (Member # 10356) on :

Im lost lol..ok do you have a picture of this table of nations so we can see@Clyde winters and also were any of these groups between libu, tehenu and temehu blacks? Also, the libyans that took the thrown in Egypt were they asiatics, sea people or blacks?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

There is no way that interpretation is accurate, as Egyptians did not think in terms of "Indo Europeans, or Semites or Blacks. And the part of the Egyptian and other Blacks dressing in extly the same clothing does not add up either.

You definitely see them dress themselves differently. Even those who are dark skinned.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
There is no way that interpretation is accurate

Wrong.

Read the following carefully and then respond:
http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

The reproduction of Ramses III tomb is by Rich Lepsius and *is* accurate, as can be shown from the actual tomb scenes:

The above are labled km.t[rm.t], and they are very dark and.... dressed...as they are dressed. Period.

Your attempt at rebuttal misses the mark is it shows *other* scenes - one of which is a reproduction also by Lepsius of the Seti I tomb drawing in which km.t and Nhsw are more distinct, another of Princess Kemset, in which Km.t and Aamu are more distinct - neither of which has any bearing on the accuracy of the Ramses III reproduction - in which Km.t and Nhsw are similar, but quite distinct from Aamu/Thnw.

The real question, this thread attempts to access is *why* the Km.t are virtually identical to the Nhsw in the Ramses III tomb scene, and why the Thnw, and Aamu appear to be in reverse from their usual positions.

But....that *is* what is on the tomb walls, so blaming Lepsius, even as his other reproductions are used as "counter evidence" against him, makes no sense.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

In the reproduction from the tomb of Ramses III, figure 'B', is named Tjhnw (Tehenu), not Indo-European. The second Black figure is titled Nhsyw.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

The drawing you posted does not look like the picture you have posted now.

While you see the dark skinned guys dressed and called Egyptians (rt) (which look like figure A), in the picture, you do not have the other man (C)with the exact same clothing that is supposed to be a foreigner.

I think both A and C are Egyptians (or the same one?

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In the reproduction from the tomb of Ramses III, figure 'B', is named Tjhnw (Tehenu), not Indo-European. The second Black figure is titled Nhsyw.

So if figure B is Tehenu, Why are you calling the Tehenu Black Libyans? Figure B doesn't look very Black to me. Maybe, like Egyptians, they had lots of looks?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^

quote:

The Meshwesh wore Tehenu traditional costumes but they are not believed to be real Tehenu. The Tehenu and the Temehu usually wore different costumes. In the New Kingdom depictions of the Temehu, the Meshwesh have "long chin beards", like the Syrian-Palestinians and Peoples of the Sea. They wear kilts, sheaths and capes open at the front tied at one shoulder. Like the earlier Tehenu they wore feathers as a sign of High Status

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
The drawing you posted does not look like the picture you have posted now.

While you see the dark skinned guys dressed and called Egyptians (rt) (which look like figure A), in the picture, you do not have the other man (C)with the exact same clothing that is supposed to be a foreigner.)

I think both A and C are Egyptians (or the same one?

You did not read the article I cited which explains this in detail, as Winters explained his theory of the labeling of Tehenu.

Again I ask you:

Please read the cited article.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

sidirom quote:
________________________________________________________________________
So if figure B is Tehenu, Why are you calling the Tehenu Black Libyans? Figure B doesn't look very Black to me. Maybe, like Egyptians, they had lots of looks?
_______________________________________________________________________________

He looks Black to me. All Black/African people do not have dark skin.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

Since when does African African equal Black? Africans come in many hues.
Yes they look African. But THAT figure does not look Black.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
The drawing you posted does not look like the picture you have posted now.

While you see the dark skinned guys dressed and called Egyptians (rt) (which look like figure A), in the picture, you do not have the other man (C)with the exact same clothing that is supposed to be a foreigner.)

I think both A and C are Egyptians (or the same one?
You did not read the article I cited which explains this in detail, as Winters explained his theory of the labeling of Tehenu.

Again I ask you:

Please read the cited article.

I did. But I did not see evidence to corroborate that the first drawing is the same as the pictures he posted.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^

quote:

The Meshwesh wore Tehenu traditional costumes but they are not believed to be real Tehenu. The Tehenu and the Temehu usually wore different costumes. In the New Kingdom depictions of the Temehu, the Meshwesh have "long chin beards", like the Syrian-Palestinians and Peoples of the Sea. They wear kilts, sheaths and capes open at the front tied at one shoulder. Like the earlier Tehenu they wore feathers as a sign of High Status

That image does not have a chin beard.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
But I did not see evidence to corroborate that the first drawing is the same as the pictures he posted.

The drawings are reproductions from Kurt Lepsius of the Tomb of Ramses III.

The "pictures" are photos of the actual tomb.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
But I did not see evidence to corroborate that the first drawing is the same as the pictures he posted.
The drawings are reproductions from Kurt Lepsius of the Tomb of Ramses III.

The "pictures" are photos of the actual tomb.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

But supposedly he took the pictures to corroborate the drawings from Lepsius. They don't why not take a picture of the exact same imagery?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ This question *was answered* by Ampim. If you didn't get the answer, then you did not read it thuroughly.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

The imagery was too wide claim? And that is why he took two pictures of virtualy the same imagery?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Keep reading, and keep going..... until you properly address the facts as related by Ampim in their entiriety.

I won't help you, because I never indulge any evasive form of argument, including obtuseness, strawman, and red herring, which is what you are doing.

You obviously understand EXACTLY what Ampim is saying, and cannot refute in the slightest the accuracy of the Tomb of Ramses III iconography.

Hence, the game playing, but....not with me. Sorry.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

From the link, Ampim puts forth this:

"...there are literally countless people in the world who have personally viewed the KV 11 "Table of Nations" images,

and I challenge anyone to publish *original photographs* of ALL FOUR Egyptians and Nubians from the Ramses III tomb, and still claim that the scene as reproduced by Sethe/Lepsius is an erroneous "pastiche."

...it is only fair, isn't it! [Smile]

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

OK. X is a human portrait s is a hyroglyph.

X s X s X s X

Condensed Xsss The sss is the name of the group.

The pictures show the condensation of one group to say Egyptians. The pictures show that.

But where are the pictures to show the other three groups?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Lol. slowly he confeses to understanding which most certainly was always the case.

Ampim's photos in the link [which are not all of his photos of the tombs] focus on the specific point of contention. Don't try to distract from it.

Are the group A from Lepsius reproductions Km.t, or not? They are.

Your statement....

quote:
Sidirom wrotes: There is no way that interpretation is accurate

.....made without any substantiation and buttressed with irrelevant distractions is *not* correct.

Lepsius is right. You are wrong. Period.

Posted by Senkhemdjed (Member # 10356) on :

Im sorry for being slow lol but could someone catch me up to speed on what the paintings mean and what seems to be the discrepency I don't quite follow the argument

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

Various reproductions of different Tomb scenes including Seti I and Ramses III were made in the 19 century by German scholar Rich Lepsius and Kurt Seth.

Some of these scenes were long exhibited - but some, like the Ramses III scene [shown above] were hidden away - for reasons the must be obvious.

When Diop published his masterpiece - African Origin of Civilisation - he brought this reproduction to public attention.

It shows the Km.t [ancient Egyptians] portraying themselves as extremely dark, virtually jet black, much like the Nhwsy [so called Nubians] and diametrically opposed to the dshr.tu [literally red peoples] - Asiatics and Libyans.

Diop's publishing of the Lepsius accurate reproduction has been attacked for years, by a number of false arguments, or arguments out of ignorance.

Professor Ampim photographed the Tombs for himself to expose the false nature of the attacks against Diop and/or Lepsius and the methodologies used to obscure the truth:

the scene does exist,
the Km.t are Black Africans,
Lepsius work is faithful,
and Diop's publishing of the scene is accurate.

Hope this helps.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ Lol. slowly he confeses to understanding which most certainly was always the case.

Ampim's photos in the link [which are not all of his photos of the tombs] focus on the specific point of contention. Don't try to distract from it.

Are the group A from Lepsius reproductions Km.t, or not? They are.

Your statement....

quote:
Sidirom wrotes: There is no way that interpretation is accurate
.....made without any substantiation and buttressed with irrelevant distractions is *not* correct.

Lepsius is right. You are wrong. Period.

How so? My contention was never that the dark skinned people were not Egyptian. So that argument is a strawman. I am not Yurco. My problem is the claim that Egyptians and the foreigners supposedly are depicted as culturally the same with the same clothing. For that you need to show the picture of those people with the other hieroglyphs. So your claim is flawed and kind of snotty as well.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
the Km.t are Black Africans,

Correction, THOSE Rm.t are Dark Skinned Africans. Other imagery shows Egyptians as brown skinned. Thus it shows the plurality of the culture.

Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :

Greetings:

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

If any one needs a source of reference for the nations listed above here it is,
E.A. Wallis Budge, AN Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary Volumes 1 and 2.

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume 1
Page 344 on your left under Ti'hsu is C = Sudanese

I assume their was a Kemetic nome is the south or people in the South (may be the ancient Tutsi people) called ti-t page \E.A. Wallis Budge 822 Volume2

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume II
Page 855 themhu= Libyans is D

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume 1
Page 111 aamu= foreign nomads, fellahin B

I will work on the rest of nations and post it later.

Hotep

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Correction, THOSE Rm.t are Dark Skinned Africans.

Correction: Black Africans *are* dark skinned Africans so your 'qualifier' is empty, and is in fact redundant.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
My contention was never that the dark skinned people were not Egyptian

Your contention *was* that there was no way the Lepsius reproduction was accurate.

Professor Ampim has shown you that it was accurate.

Your statement is thus proven false.

quote:
you are kind of snotty as well

lol. Invariably sour grapes follow defeated arguments like stink follows excrement.

translation: no one cares that you're upset because your false statements were exposed.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Correction, THOSE Rm.t are Dark Skinned Africans.
Correction: Black Africans *are* dark skinned Africans so your 'qualifier' is empty, and is in fact redundant.

All Africans are not Black so your assumption that the qualifier is not neccesary is incorrect.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
All Africans are not Black so your assumption that the qualifier is not neccesary is incorrect.

I didn't say all Africans were Black, so your qualifier relates to nothing but your own straw argument.

Your posts are little more than a series of irrelevant comments, which increasingly suggest your frustration with reality of Black Km.t, as shown on Ramses III Tomb scene photos and Lepsuis ACCURATE reproduction below, which you have been unable to refute, in any way.

I suggest you swallow your sour grapes and stop blaming the messenger.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I didn't say all Africans were Black, so your qualifier relates to nothing but your own straw argument.

You are the one building strawmen. You have not shown that the Rm.t portrayed are dressed the same as those supposedly foreing from the south.

quote:
Your posts are little more than a series of irrelevant comments, which increasingly suggest your frustration with reality of Black Km.t, as shown on Ramses III Tomb scene photos and Lepsuis ACCURATE reproduction below, which you have been unable to refute, in any way.
But others have. And your webiste has not refuted those claims as no picture has been shown of the other groups. And your strawman of a Black Km't which is wrong does not relate to the fact the Km.t had a black population along with other populations.

quote:
I suggest you swallow your sour grapes and stop blaming the messenger.

It seems you are the one obsessing on the messenger because you have no concrete evidence of the message.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Wrong again. The message shown above, is from the Km.t.

It is quite literally, set in stone [concrete] and written on the wall.

Obviously you get it, and you sure can't refute it, so why continue to vent?

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ Wrong again. The message shown above, is from the Km.t.
It is quite literally, set in stone [concrete] and written on the wall. [quote]
No, that is a trascription. The only thing set in stone we saw on your pictures was the group labeled Rm.t

[quote]Obviously you get it, and you sure can't refute it, so why continue to vent?

Obviously you don't get it. Where is the evidence for the OTHER dark skinned peoples labeled foreigners that dress the same as Egyptians.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ Wrong again. The message shown above, is from the Km.t.
It is quite literally, set in stone [concrete] and written on the wall. [quote]
No, that is a trascription. The only thing set in stone we saw on your pictures was the group labeled Rm.t

[quote]Obviously you get it, and you sure can't refute it, so why continue to vent?
Obviously you don't get it. Where is the evidence for the OTHER dark skinned peoples labeled foreigners that dress the same as Egyptians.

How the Nubians dressed in the photo in question, even if it is the same as those of the Egyptians, is irrelevant to the point of the photos shown, which was, the depiction representing 'Egyptians'. So the real question is whether you are denying that those dark skin individuals represent the Kemetians or the "Rmt", as spelt out in the text?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Correct. Obtuseness is no defense. The desparate lengths that people go to - to try and distract attention from an unpleasant truth never fails to amuse. [Smile]

Posted by Senkhemdjed (Member # 10356) on :

A couple questions

1. Is it possible this is a depiction of slaves/servants?

2. Are/were the Tenehu black libyans?

3. Were the Libyan/Labu rulers of egypt like osorkon etc. black or asiatic libyans?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Senkhemdjed:

1. Is it possible this is a depiction of slaves/servants?

Why would they be? There is no text therein to suggest such, nor do I see indication of ridicule or humiliation in the depictions.

quote:
Senkhemdjed:

2. Are/were the Tenehu black libyans?

The 'Tehenu' are supposed to be the dark Skin 'Libyans'. The 'Temehu' are supposed to be the later lighter-toned inhabitants of the region.

Something interesting that I feel is often overlooked in the aforementioned Rameses III tomb wall paintings due to too much emphasis placed on the appearance of the Kemetians, though not unheard of [e.g. as in a few depictions of 'laborers'], is the 'beardless' Asiatics in that same depiction, not to mention the interesting hairstyle.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

1.) No. This scene is associated with religious text, stating that the Rm.t and Nehasu are children of Horus, son of Osirus and Isis.

2) The Egyptians called the population of the neighboring Libya `Tehenu.' They were pictured with dark complexion and curly hair.[Ahmed Fakhir, `Siwa Oasis', (Cairo, 1973), p. 75]

3) I don't know the ehnic background of Osorkon.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

The condensed painting (Lepsius' Denkmaeler plate 48) is an accurate reproduction of

what's in Ramses III tomb (KV 11). Many inaccurate claims have been made about it
which is one reason I present it here without Diop's commentary.

I think this is the original Denkmaeler plate.

What I really want to point out is that the word Tjhnw (Tehenu) appears
nowhere on that plate or any of the other reproductions of vignette 30 of
the Gate of Teka Hra in the Book of Gates.

The word next to the rightmost figure is TMHHW (Tjemehu Tamehu Tamahu etc.)

The THHNW and the TMHHW both were KM.t's immediate western neighbors but were
also distinct, though related, ethnies. The Tehenu lived more to the north at delta
latitudes while the Tamehu were more to the south near the various NHHSW peoples.

Both show up in Old Kingdom documents. Tehenou, they were as dark as Kmtyw,
appear pinioned on the reliefs of Neuserre and Sahure (Dynasty V) who defeated them.

Tamehou are mentioned by Harkhuf a royal merchant for Pepy II (Dynasty VI)
in reference to a brewing war between them and the NHHSW of Yam.

As the painting above makes clear the Tamehou are not in the Nehesi category.

Before 12th dynasty times both Tehenou and Tamehou were painted the same
general shades as the Kmtyw. The Tehenou were for sure indigenous "Libyans"
and representative of the black phenotypes in "Libya." They were not Nilotics
nor Bantu nor Sudanese. They were a local "Libyan" ethnic group and quite
different from the people who today want to use them as proof of protohistoric
Imazighen in KM.t. Imazighen do not appear in KM.t until the Late Kingdom as
the Meshwesh.

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In the reproduction from the tomb of Ramses III, figure 'B', is named Tjhnw (Tehenu), not Indo-European. The second Black figure is titled Nhsyw.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

No more excuses about where the "Nubian" photos went, or whether the lack of 'direct' posting of photos of the Nhsw in the aforementioned link, has anything to do with a desire to mislead the reader. Here they are, the "Nubians":

Courtesy of Mr. Ampim, depictions of the Nehesw or the "Nubians"...

And now, the Rmt or Kemetians [note: the damaged portion, but Horus' legs and a portion of his arm is visible at the far left hand side of the photo]:

Finally, photos of Rmt and Nhsw side by side:

Dress codes and complexion are similar to me. [Smile]

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

alTakruri quote:
__________________________________________________________
What I really want to point out is that the word Tjhnw (Tehenu) appears
nowhere on that plate or any of the other reproductions of vignette 30 of
the Gate of Teka Hra in the Book of Gates.

The word next to the rightmost figure is TMHHW (Tjemehu Tamehu Tamahu etc.)

The THHNW and the TMHHW both were KM.t's immediate western neighbors but were
also distinct, though related, ethnies. The Tehenu lived more to the north at delta
latitudes while the Tamehu were more to the south near the various NHHSW peoples.

_____________________________________________________________

You are wrong the Rameses III relief clearly illustrates that the people on the relief from left to right are Rmt (Egyptian), Tjhnw (Libyans),Nhsy (Kushites) and Aamw (Syro-Palestinians). This reality is discussed by F.J. Yurco, in his article on the Rameses III relief, in Egypt in Africa, (Ed.) Theorore Celenke (1996).

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Not worth arguing. Anybody who can read mdw ntr can easily verify what I wrote.

Most important is that Ramses III had no say in how that text reads. It's simply the
words of a preexisting religious document in use since the end of the 18th dynasty.
It'd be in continuous use until the 20th dynasty. The pharoahs of that time span
incorporated the text of the Book of Gates onto one of their sarcophagi and
sometimes also at least one of their tomb walls.

It has nothing at all to do with recording either military or diplomatic exercises.

Tjhnw (Tehenu) appears nowhere on that plate or any of the other
reproductions of vignette 30 of the Gate of Teka Hra in the Book of Gates.

The word next to the rightmost figure is TMHHW (Tjemehu Tamehu Tamahu etc.)

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
alTakruri quote:
__________________________________________________________
What I really want to point out is that the word Tjhnw (Tehenu) appears
nowhere on that plate or any of the other reproductions of vignette 30 of
the Gate of Teka Hra in the Book of Gates.

The word next to the rightmost figure is TMHHW (Tjemehu Tamehu Tamahu etc.)

The THHNW and the TMHHW both were KM.t's immediate western neighbors but were
also distinct, though related, ethnies. The Tehenu lived more to the north at delta
latitudes while the Tamehu were more to the south near the various NHHSW peoples.

_____________________________________________________________

You are wrong the Rameses III relief clearly illustrates that the people on the relief from left to right are Rmt (Egyptian), Tjhnw (Libyans),Nhsy (Kushites) and Aamw (Syro-Palestinians). This reality is discussed by F.J. Yurco, in his article on the Rameses III relief, in Egypt in Africa, (Ed.) Theorore Celenke (1996).

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
How the Nubians dressed in the photo in question, even if it is the same as those of the Egyptians, is irrelevant to the point of the photos shown, which was, the depiction representing 'Egyptians'. So the real question is whether you are denying that those dark skin individuals represent the Kemetians or the "Rmt", as spelt out in the text?

Never disputed they were Egyptian. I do dispute the infered claim that Egyptians and Nubians werejust the same culture and even dressed alike.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

I disagree. Allowing for nuances, the art of almost all periods shows their close
similarity in dress. But can you develop your stance by giving concrete examples?

Anyway the Book of Gates 4:5 scene 30 as depicted in Rameses III tomb (KV11f)
has RT RMT and NHHSW dressed exactly the same down to the minutest detail.

They only differ in that the RT RMT sport earrings and their fabric kilt is form
fitting. The NHHSW have nothing attached to their ears and their fabric kilt is
loose, hanging to the same level as the skin kilt.

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
I do dispute the infered claim that Egyptians and Nubians were just the same culture and even dressed alike.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Off to a good start but here's a few things.

In the supplied graphic the two guys on the left are not Sudanese they are Egyptian.
This can be ascertained by the identifying mdw ntr symbol of the sitting ntr which is
rendered between them.

The sitting ntr (Gardiner's A40) is the determinative for superior people. If the
full scene were visible the symbols for R (a mouth) T (a tethering rope) and RMT
(a stylized kneeling man) would also be visible.

quote:
Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Greetings:

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

If any one needs a source of reference for the nations listed above here it is,
E.A. Wallis Budge, AN Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary Volumes 1 and 2.

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume 1
Page 344 on your left under Ti'hsu is C = Sudanese

I assume their was a Kemetic nome is the south or people in the South (may be the ancient Tutsi people) called ti-t page \E.A. Wallis Budge 822 Volume2

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume II
Page 855 themhu= Libyans is D

E.A. Wallis Budge Volume 1
Page 111 aamu= foreign nomads, fellahin B

I will work on the rest of nations and post it later.

Hotep

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
Never disputed they were Egyptian. I do dispute the infered claim that Egyptians and Nubians werejust the same culture and even dressed alike.

SidiRom, your premises for that so-called dispute was based on a very shaky foundation that, the photos of the "Nhsw" or "Nubians" weren't provided, and so, "perhaps" the author [Mr. Ampim] must have something to hide, concerning his presentations against fraudulent claims that, Lepsius' depiction of the said Rameses III tomb wall paintings was an incorrect representation of the actual thing.

I've presented the photos of those "Nubians", which you 'presumed' [without any basis] weren't directly posted on the website for some creepy reason. Now that this weak basis of yours, for supposedly disputing [more like questioning, rather than disputing] Ampim's claim about the Rmt and Nhsw wearing IDENTICAL attires and having the same complexion, has been eliminated with concrete evidence, do you now concur with Mr. Ampim's claim, or are you still 'disputing' [as you put it] that claim?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

Good comments AlTakruri and Supercar, but you are really refuting a troll argument.

In fact the guy [Sidirom] made the claim that the Lepsius drawing was inaccurate.

This claim was made in ignorance, and has been refuted.

So...what's a troll to do? ?

He simply plays bait and switch now with a ludicrous pretense to be refuting an 'inferred' - ie NONEXISTENT, argument.

Even the Km.t themselves do not literally all have the *exact same culture exact same dress.*

This has nothing to do with Sidirom's false statements with regards the Lepsius drawings.

This is a classic example of an irrelevant straw argument, meant to distract attention from prior false remarks.

Why chase after it?

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I disagree. Allowing for nuances, the art of almost all periods shows their close
similarity in dress. But can you develop your stance by giving concrete examples?

Anyway the Book of Gates 4:5 scene 30 as depicted in Rameses III tomb (KV11f)
has RT RMT and NHHSW dressed exactly the same down to the minutest detail.

They only differ in that the RT RMT sport earrings and their fabric kilt is form
fitting. The NHHSW have nothing attached to their ears and their fabric kilt is
loose, hanging to the same level as the skin kilt.

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
I do dispute the infered claim that Egyptians and Nubians were just the same culture and even dressed alike.

Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :

alTakruri wrote:

quote:
Off to a good start but here's a few things.

In the supplied graphic the two guys on the left are not Sudanese they are Egyptian.
This can be ascertained by the identifying mdw ntr symbol of the sitting ntr which is
rendered between them.

The sitting ntr (Gardiner's A40) is the determinative for superior people. If the
full scene were visible the symbols for R (a mouth) T (a tethering rope) and RMT
(a stylized kneeling man) would also be visible.

Thank you for the decipherment of the RMT, I would like to point out a discrepancy between Budge and Gardiner

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

Image C.
Using Budge page cxiv, that bird is a eagle notice Budge has the bird facing left also giving exactly what we see in picture.
This would be interpreted as (Ti)hsu

Using Gardiner that bird is a guinea bird and would give the (Nh)hsu

both would be interpreted as someone linked to Kemet living in the South just thought I would make it known.

Hotep.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

In fact the guy [Sidirom] made the claim that the Lepsius drawing was inaccurate.

I totally agree that he/she is engaging in strawman form of arguments, initially charging that Lepsius' drawing was inaccurate; hence my earlier question to him/her, concerning the real issue of what he/she was denying, to which SidiRom just responded with his/her last post.

SidiRom initially was questioning the notion of Egyptians being colored in such dark tone, not to mention 'identical' to that of the "Nubians". Add to this the dress codes, which were also identical. Like the charges against Lepsius' representations of the wall paintings, which Ampim was refuting, SidiRom's position was supposedly that, the "Nubians" were mistaken for the "Egyptians", and hence, his/her changing the goal posts from stating that the drawings were inaccurate, to asking for the whereabouts of the photos of "Nubians". The implication here is that, the same photos of "Nubians" are being flaunted as "Egyptians", as well as "Nubians". If this continues to be his/her tool of argument, he/she needs to start rethinking that premises.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Please understand the Book of Gates is set religious scripture not subject
to randomization of its geoethnies. Without the word NHHSW (southerners)
the text loses its meaning. It's not a "table of nations." It generically shows
the people where the sun is at at sunrise (easterners), midday (southerners),
and sunset (westerners).

They're all dead, in the Dwat (netherworld/underworld/nightworld), undergoing
resurrection by Heru (Horus) in preparation to being allotted their deserved
time in the afterlife before finally in the end facing Ausir for judgement.

What does (Ti)hsu mean? Is it generic like NHHSW or does it mean a specific
ethny/tribe/nationality?

quote:
Originally posted by Hotep2u:
Thank you for the decipherment of the RMT, I would like to point out a discrepancy between Budge and Gardiner

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

Image C.
Using Budge page cxiv, that bird is a eagle notice Budge has the bird facing left also giving exactly what we see in picture.
This would be interpreted as (Ti)hsu

Using Gardiner that bird is a guinea bird and would give the (Nh)hsu

both would be interpreted as someone linked to Kemet living in the South just thought I would make it known.

Hotep.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

I don't know. Guess I'm generous in outlook. Maybe SidiRom doesn't have a
decade or more of experience in these fields under his/her belt. We all had
to start somewhere. Only thing is, with the debate driven nature of this list,
no one can afford to back down or modify their pov for fear of being labelled
a loser. So unlike academia in general where thesis meets antithesis yielding
synthesis, or a new emerging thesis, to undergo the process again.

Academia also recognizes there can be various conflicting interpretations that
are all perfectly valid as long as they are backed by supporting data. That's
why in the social sciences, and even in the interpretation of hard science,
we see disagreement among the experts and professionals.

Then, again as many times as I've been kicked in the teeth after you've warned me
about a poster I guess you wonder: "When will al~Takruri ever learn. Hahahaha!!

Anyway, thanks for the pat on the back, it really goes a long way here! [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Good comments AlTakruri and Supercar, but you are really refuting a troll argument.

In fact the guy [Sidirom] made the claim that the Lepsius drawing was inaccurate.

This claim was made in ignorance, and has been refuted.

So...what's a troll to do? ?

He simply plays bait and switch now with a ludicrous pretense to be refuting an 'inferred' - ie NONEXISTENT, argument.

Even the Km.t themselves do not literally all have the *exact same culture exact same dress.*

This has nothing to do with Sidirom's false statements with regards the Lepsius drawings.

This is a classic example of an irrelevant straw argument, meant to distract attention from prior false remarks.

Why chase after it?

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I disagree. Allowing for nuances, the art of almost all periods shows their close
similarity in dress. But can you develop your stance by giving concrete examples?

Anyway the Book of Gates 4:5 scene 30 as depicted in Rameses III tomb (KV11f)
has RT RMT and NHHSW dressed exactly the same down to the minutest detail.

They only differ in that the RT RMT sport earrings and their fabric kilt is form
fitting. The NHHSW have nothing attached to their ears and their fabric kilt is
loose, hanging to the same level as the skin kilt.

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
I do dispute the infered claim that Egyptians and Nubians were just the same culture and even dressed alike.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

rashole and company claim I am the one building a strawman argument, but they try to claim have a problem with dark skinned depictions of Egyptians when I posted paintings showing dark skinned Egyptians myself. Rashole may think he has some sort of omnitient capability, but really just has anm overinflated image of his capacity. What he doesn't have is images of the 'Nubians' dressed the same as the Egyptians.

alTakruri, you mentioned other artwork, I would love to see the imagery to get a better understanding of what you are describing if possible.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

Photographs of "Nubians" with identical attire as their Egyptian counterparts was already posted a page ago!

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Only thing is, with the debate driven nature of this list,
no one can afford to back down or modify their pov for fear of being labelled
a loser.

Perhaps. But the ability to acknowledge a point in contradiction to earlier falsified claims is a basic facet of intellectual courage.

Inability to do so defines intellectual cowardice.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Word!

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Only thing is, with the debate driven nature of this list,
no one can afford to back down or modify their pov for fear of being labelled
a loser.
Perhaps. But the ability to acknowledge a point in contradiction to earlier falsified claims is a basic facet of intellectual courage.

Inability to do so defines intellectual cowardice.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Not sure what art that may be. Can you clarify? Anyway I only recall this
thread discussing BG 4:5 s30. Supercar linked Dr. Ampin's photos showing
the NHHSW in that painting as depicted in KV11 (Rameses III's tomb). Lepsius'
condensation (Denkmaeler Supplement plate 48 is indeed accurate and authentic.
I posted that whole plate and you can see another condensation of the same
scene but from a different tomb in the upper right. That condensation is from
KV8 (Merenptah's tomb).

OK, I guess the other art you're asking about is paintings from the Book of Gates
the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 from other tombs of the 19th and 20th dynasties.
Well so far three versions have been posted:
1) KV11 Rameses III (the controversial one
2) KV17f Seti I (the most commonly known one
3) KV8 Merenptah (one the many ignored ones

BG 4:5 scene 30 as in KV8 tomb of Merneptah

BG 4:5 s30 as in KV11 tomb of Rameses III
Denkmaeler supplement plate 48 condensations

Denkmaeler plate 136ab as in KV17 tomb of Seti I chamber F
Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 full repro

BTW - No one ever questioned the integrity of Lepsius' Denkmaeler art team
until blacks started referencing them. The Lepsius detractors were motivated
by racial bias. I could name their underlying subconscious(?) assumptions,
but for the sake of peace I'm letting it go unsaid.

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
What he doesn't have is images of the 'Nubians' dressed the same as the Egyptians.

alTakruri, you mentioned other artwork, I would love to see the imagery to get a better understanding of what you are describing if possible.

Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :

quote:
rashole and company claim I am the one building a strawman argument

Are these personal insults or attacks really called for?

Posted by SEEKING (Member # 10105) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ausar:

quote:
rashole and company claim I am the one building a strawman argument
Are these personal insults or attacks really called for?

SidiRom is the Troll Salsassain

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :

So Sidirom is Salsassain that would explain why he has no point and is getting owned by others. Some of these trolls could learn something if they were not so ignorant of the truth. And you see a troll because they always make personal insults when they are left with no point.

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ausar:

quote:
rashole and company claim I am the one building a strawman argument
Are these personal insults or attacks really called for?

Is calling me a troll really called for?

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :

Seems in tha majority of nations images Egyptians are pictured in the white skirts and topless and brown and then you have the dressed egyptiasn that are darker. Different hued egyptians? Even the clothing is different, Different regions within Egypt?

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
Seems in tha majority of nations images Egyptians are pictured in the white skirts and topless and brown and then you have the dressed egyptiasn that are darker. Different hued egyptians? Even the clothing is different, Different regions within Egypt?

Are not different hued black Africans common?

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :

Yes and people need to stop thinking that this means their is different people. Egyptians color was that it was lighter in lower egypt and darker as you go up the nile. This shows that black africans come in many hues.

Posted by Raugaj (Member # 10480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:
Originally posted by SidiRom:
Seems in tha majority of nations images Egyptians are pictured in the white skirts and topless and brown and then you have the dressed egyptiasn that are darker. Different hued egyptians? Even the clothing is different, Different regions within Egypt?
Are not different hued black Africans common?

See the double speak? First you talk about darkness of skin defining Blacks, but then you talk about multihued Blacks. Make up your mind.

And no, I am not talking about hue. I don't consider any of those people Black. They are dark brown and medium browned. Specialization due to environment. Ecotypes. As Keita said, variability within Africa and the Levant. There is no magic line separating the Levant from Africa. The Northern regions had people who looked a bit different from people farther south because of environment. And if someone from farther south married someone from farther north, the child probably would have been of the same hue as someone midway in territory between those two people. Of course looks migrated. SO theri were darker people in the north as well, and lighter people south, but we are talking average patterns. To call them all Black is a racial claim. To call them all African is more accurate. To claim they are different than the people of the Levant is false as well.

Posted by Raugaj (Member # 10480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by KING:
Yes and people need to stop thinking that this means their is different people. Egyptians color was that it was lighter in lower egypt and darker as you go up the nile. This shows that black africans come in many hues.

Thsi shows that AFRICANS came in various hues, not Black Africans.

And this is not the same as AfroAmericans, who also come in many hues but not only because of lighter populations like the Ibos, but also because of admixture with other populations.

Posted by Raugaj (Member # 10480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Perhaps. But the ability to acknowledge a point in contradiction to earlier falsified claims is a basic facet of intellectual courage.

Inability to do so defines intellectual cowardice.

Practice what you preach oh hypocritical one.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

^^Up

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Hey Clyde Winters, I've been a big fan of yours for years, you helped in my understanding of how the Olmecs (Mandings) sailed from Atlan, with the astronomical navigation knowledge to achieve such, when the Popol Vu says the ancients "measured the round face of the Earth and the arch of the sky." I hope you comment on the thread "Precession and the GP."

And thank you for your enlightening work. Are you familiar with the work of Barry Fell and W.J. Perry (Children of the Sun)?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

LOL. Then you are a fan of lies because his Olmec claims have been debunked.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Where do you think the Olmecs came from?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Where do you think the Olmecs came from?

Their ancestors you mean? Originally Africa, first migrations out of there to Asia, from South East Asia they dispersed to Australia and outlying isles as well as the Americas. The Olmec and their ancestors were in the Americas for quite some time though.

Go here

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Where do you think the Olmecs came from?
Their ancestors you mean? Originally Africa, first migrations out of there to Asia, from South East Asia they dispersed to Australia and outlying isles as well as the Americas. The Olmec and their ancestors were in the Americas for quite some time though.

Go here

This is false. The science to prove it is below:

African Olmec: Science or Myth

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

I'm still waiting for you to address the facts and queries in the other thread. Why would I waste my time with yet another website of regurgitation if you have yet to even attempt to refute or challenge the responses already out there to your claims with any type of solid evidence.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
I'm still waiting for you to address the facts and queries in the other thread. Why would I waste my time with yet another website of regurgitation if you have yet to even attempt to refute or challenge the responses already out there to your claims with any type of solid evidence.

You have never presented any evidence refuting any of my research.

Ignorance will get you nowhere. Learn and grow.

Or remain stagnant and die mentally.

.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

The Lapita people came from southeast Asia, landing in the Americas from the west, and the Mandings from the east, as Clyde points out.

Both were privy to the ancient navigation by precession methodolgy (see article #2 at http://www.IceAgeCivilizations.com), google Maui's Tanawa to see one of the devices (besides the "Celtic Cross") used to measure the movements of the stars.

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
The condensed painting (Lepsius' Denkmaeler plate 48) is an accurate reproduction of
what's in Ramses III tomb (KV 11). Many inaccurate claims have been made about it
which is one reason I present it here without Diop's commentary.

I think this is the original Denkmaeler plate.

What I really want to point out is that the word Tjhnw (Tehenu) appears
nowhere on that plate or any of the other reproductions of vignette 30 of
the Gate of Teka Hra in the Book of Gates.

The word next to the rightmost figure is TMHHW (Tjemehu Tamehu Tamahu etc.)

The THHNW and the TMHHW both were KM.t's immediate western neighbors but were
also distinct, though related, ethnies. The Tehenu lived more to the north at delta
latitudes while the Tamehu were more to the south near the various NHHSW peoples.

Both show up in Old Kingdom documents. Tehenou, they were as dark as Kmtyw,
appear pinioned on the reliefs of Neuserre and Sahure (Dynasty V) who defeated them.

Tamehou are mentioned by Harkhuf a royal merchant for Pepy II (Dynasty VI)
in reference to a brewing war between them and the NHHSW of Yam.

As the painting above makes clear the Tamehou are not in the Nehesi category.

Before 12th dynasty times both Tehenou and Tamehou were painted the same
general shades as the Kmtyw. The Tehenou were for sure indigenous "Libyans"
and representative of the black phenotypes in "Libya." They were not Nilotics
nor Bantu nor Sudanese. They were a local "Libyan" ethnic group and quite
different from the people who today want to use them as proof of protohistoric
Imazighen in KM.t. Imazighen do not appear in KM.t until the Late Kingdom as
the Meshwesh.

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In the reproduction from the tomb of Ramses III, figure 'B', is named Tjhnw (Tehenu), not Indo-European. The second Black figure is titled Nhsyw.

Hey Al can you tell me the names of each of the 7 and "a half" people from left to right bottom left to right on the first picture I have never seen this one before.

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :

Can I see some pictures of black tenehu Libyans?

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Diodorus Siculus called the ancient Libyans the Atlantioi, where have we heard that before?

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

The Popol Vu says that the ancient ancestors sailed from across the eastern sea, in a a time of "black rain and constant twilight," when those navigators could measure the round face of the Earth and the arch of the sky.

Barry Fell (Harvard no less) knew that they navigated the the oceans, he just didn't know how they knew where to go, and how to get back, but now we know how they did it.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
The Popol Vu says that the ancient ancestors sailed from across the eastern sea, in a a time of "black rain and constant twilight," when those navigators could measure the round face of the Earth and the arch of the sky.

Barry Fell (Harvard no less) knew that they navigated the the oceans, he just didn't know how they knew where to go, and how to get back, but now we know how they did it.

The Olmec recorded this voyage on Stela #5 from Izapa, Mexico.

Olmec Migration Document

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :

Could you provide an exact quote from the Popol Vuh with a complete citation?

Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
I'm still waiting for you to address the facts and queries in the other thread. Why would I waste my time with yet another website of regurgitation if you have yet to even attempt to refute or challenge the responses already out there to your claims with any type of solid evidence.
You have never presented any evidence refuting any of my research.

Ignorance will get you nowhere. Learn and grow.

Or remain stagnant and die mentally.

.

Just because there is no refutation of your researched published doesn't make it true, thats a fallacious argument Clyde.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by X-Ras:

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
I'm still waiting for you to address the facts and queries in the other thread. Why would I waste my time with yet another website of regurgitation if you have yet to even attempt to refute or challenge the responses already out there to your claims with any type of solid evidence.
You have never presented any evidence refuting any of my research.

Ignorance will get you nowhere. Learn and grow.

Or remain stagnant and die mentally.

.
Just because there is no refutation of your researched published doesn't make it true, thats a fallacious argument Clyde.

Not really, until a hypothesis is disconfirmed it remains unfalsified. Certainly if the research has not been refuted it remains confirmed.

Research is never proven, it can only be confirmed and disconfirmed.

Until you present an abundance of evidence disconfirming a hypothesis it has validity.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

There're plenty of Olmec=Mande threads.
Can we keep this one on topic re Tehenu?

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Where do you think the Olmecs came from?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You have never presented any evidence refuting any of my research.
Ignorance will get you nowhere. Learn and grow.
Or remain stagnant and die mentally.
.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Anyone that goes to the other thread can see the plentiful amount of material you have not addressed. but keep on posting links to your websites on hope people will ignore that fact.

quote:
James I. Nienhuis wrote:
The Lapita people came from southeast Asia, landing in the Americas from the west, and the Mandings from the east, as Clyde points out.

Both were privy to the ancient navigation by precession methodolgy (see article #2 at http://www.IceAgeCivilizations.com ), google Maui's Tanawa to see one of the devices (besides the "Celtic Cross") used to measure the movements of the stars.

Keep dreaming. Why would I want to read your hyperdiffussionist book if you can't present credible evidence here?

quote:
The Popol Vu says that the ancient ancestors sailed from across the eastern sea, in a a time of "black rain and constant twilight," when those navigators could measure the round face of the Earth and the arch of the sky.

Feel free to present a direct quote from the Popol Vuh.

quote:
[quote]Barry Fell (Harvard no less) knew that they navigated the the oceans, he just didn't know how they knew where to go, and how to get back, but now we know how they did it.[/qb]

And my father says he is full of shyte. He went to Harvard as well. My father is a doctor and Barry Fell was an ichthyologist at Harvard, not an anthropologist, linguist or archaeologist. Neither would have expert opinions on this subject.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

It's all right there in the rn mdw.
Can't you read them? I've given the
translation and an in depth assessment
elsewhere. I'm not repeating it special
for you here. If you didn't get it there,
you won't get it if I present it again.

Do your homework and you'll retain the info
because you will have invested your time and
efforts unlike having it handed to you on a
silver platter which you won't grasp or retain
in memory.

quote:
Originally posted by vidadavida:

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:

Hey Al can you tell me the names of each of the 7 and "a half" people from left
to right bottom left to right on the first picture I have never seen this one before.

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
It's all right there in the rn mdw.
Can't you read them? I've given the
translation and an in depth assessment
elsewhere. I'm not repeating it special
for you here. If you didn't get it there,
you won't get it if I present it again.

Do your homework and you'll retain the info
because you will have invested your time and
efforts unlike having it handed to you on a
silver platter which you won't grasp or retain
in memory.

quote:
Originally posted by vidadavida:

quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:

Hey Al can you tell me the names of each of the 7 and "a half" people from left to right bottom left to right on the first picture I have never seen this one before.

Where is the post that you explained, I must have missed it somewhere. Also, do you have pictures of black Libyans (tenehu)

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Actually Diodorus list several names of various
ancient Libyans. "Atlantoi" is but one of the
litoral ethnies in that list (or) in Herodotus'.

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Diodorus Siculus called the ancient Libyans the
Atlantioi, where have we heard that before?

Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :

The black native Libyans are still in Libya though in a minority.

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

True. Jazelle has pics of them in here group.
No promises, will try to dig them up by Monday.

quote:
Originally posted by Bettyboo:
The black native Libyans are still in Libya though in a minority.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Yes, there are darker Libyans. Just like lighter native Libyans as well.

Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raugaj:
And no, I am not talking about hue. I don't consider any of those people Black. They are dark brown and medium browned.

All African people aren't jet black. Africans come in a variety of shades. Dark Brown and Medium Brown skinned Africans are just as much Black African as are those with the darkest of skin tones.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

All those people whereas African once Africa as a continental concept took hold. And all those that adopted a Black identity would be just as Black. But being African does not automatically mean being Black, nor does being a tropical African immediately mean you are black, as in dark skin.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

But being African does not automatically mean being Black, nor does being a tropical African immediately mean you are black, as in dark skin.

Of course it does. Show me one indigenous 'leucodermic' tropical African population...avoid pointless picture spamming of individuals.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

But being African does not automatically mean being Black, nor does being a tropical African immediately mean you are black, as in dark skin.
Of course it does. Show me one indigenous 'leucodermic' tropical African population...avoid pointless picture spamming of individuals.

Sandawe. Show me that they are all dark skinned. And then show me your sources of what defines leucodermic versus melanodermic. Try actually using real sources and not other threads this time.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

But being African does not automatically mean being Black, nor does being a tropical African immediately mean you are black, as in dark skin.
Of course it does. Show me one indigenous 'leucodermic' tropical African population...avoid pointless picture spamming of individuals.
Sandawe.

Lol. Are you of your rockers? The Sandawe are "leucodermic", according to which objective indicators?

quote:
Mustafino:

Show me that they are all dark skinned. And then show me your sources of what defines leucodermic versus melanodermic. Try actually using real sources and not other threads this time.

Done...here: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004938;p=2

Try usually addressing 'real sources' placed in other threads that you haven't answered to, this time.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Lol. Are you of your rockers? The Sandawe are "leucodermic", according to which objective indicators?

nice try. I said lighter skinned. You are the fool using the claim of your nebulous term of leucodermic.

quote:
Done...here: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004938;p=2

Try usually addressing 'real sources' placed in other threads that you haven't answered to, this time.

Nice try. Feel free to post specific quotes. I can post tons of forums you should visit. But you don't. And I answered you on that thread.

If you have specific evidence post it here.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

Done...here: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004938;p=2

Try usually addressing 'real sources' placed in other threads that you haven't answered to, this time.
Nice try.

...goes without saying, considering that you don't even 'try'.

quote:
Mustafin:

Feel free to post specific quotes. I can post tons of forums you should visit. But you don't. And I answered you on that thread.

If you have specific evidence post it here.

^Jablonski skin tone "predictions", not from studies on actual populations, but based on UV radiation intensity.

...from the link you didn't bother to read.

^ [highlighted] which I can repost in almost any thread, and it will still be right about the status quo.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
...goes without saying, considering that you don't even 'try'.

Don't need to with your sad attempts.

quote:

^Jablonski skin tone "predictions", not from studies on actual populations, but based on UV radiation intensity.
...from the link you didn't bother to read.
^ [highlighted] which I can repost in almost any thread, and it will still be right about the status quo.

Predictions, not actual evidence. Again, no proof against the Sandawe. By the way, that picture is from the site Frank owns. I am well aware of it.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

...goes without saying, considering that you don't even 'try'.
Don't need to with your sad attempts.

Sad 'attempts' that are obviously difficult for you to refute or address, is better than "no" attempt that you are infamous for. [Wink]

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:

^Jablonski skin tone "predictions", not from studies on actual populations, but based on UV radiation intensity.
...from the link you didn't bother to read.
^ [highlighted] which I can repost in almost any thread, and it will still be right about the status quo.
Predictions, not actual evidence. Again, no proof against the Sandawe. By the way, that picture is from the site Frank owns. I am well aware of it.

The first one is relevant for the fact that it reflects studies done on actual populations by Biasutti, and the second one is relevant for the fact that Jablonski was indicating melanin levels based on intensity of UV radiations on the various latitudes. You'd understand this if you paid attention, and asked questions, instead of busy not answering and posting peculiar claims.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Again, nice try. It still doesn't address the Sandawe.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Agreed, you have yet to address the Sandawe, so stop repeating their names as if you're suffering from Autism.

SANDAWE SCHOOL:

^ However, feel free to show that Sandawe are not Black.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
Again, nice try.

Thank you. Now 'try' producing evidence of indigenous 'leucodermic' Sandawe and tropical Africans, for which you have produced 'zip' to date. [Smile]

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
translation: He can't find any actual evidence that the Sandawe are not Black.
Nor has he ever seen, nor can he find any pictures of non Black Sandawe, in spite of all his googling.
So...he simply repeats is false claims and tries hard to ignor the facts....
Hardly, I already posted one picture. But yes they are hard to find on the web period. And I already gave quotes that the Sandawe have darkenened due to admixture.
"The original Sandawe were lighter in skin colour than are those of today." The Physical Characters of the Sandawe
J. C. Trevor, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1947), pp. 61-78
"Sample Description:The Sandawe are a small group of people numbering about 40,000 found in North Central Tanzania in the Dodoma Region, Kondoa District; in close proximity to Kondoa town, just between the Mponde and Bubu rivers. The Sandawe are considered to be a tiny remnant of a race of people that originally lived over much of Africa. The Sandawe language includes click sounds as consonants and is also tonal. Totally unrelated to other languages around them, it is difficult to learn. The language is related to the languages of the Bushmen (San) and Hottentots (Khoi) of southern Africa and is classified as a Khoisan language. The Sandawe are racially different from the surrounding tribes. Whereas most of the tribes in Tanzania are Bantu, the Sandawe are San. They have lighter skin and are smaller; with knotty hair like that of the Bushmen, commonly referred to as peppercorn hair. They have the epicanthic fold of the eyelid (like East Asian peoples) common to the Bushmen."
http://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/recordinfo.asp?condition=populations.pop_uid='PO000661N

"The Sandawe and Hadza live about 150 km (93.21 miles) apart, but they look very different," Tishkoff told Discovery News. "The Hadza are dark skinned and the Sandawe are light skinned, for instance. They both practice hunting and gathering and are thought to be descendants of very ancestral populations from that region." "
Was on Discovery with a picture of a lighter Sandawe. No longer there, can't help you.

quote:
Remember just because you are only part Black, doesn't mean they aren't all Black.
Those Sandawe are dark skinned. Their Sandawe predecessors were not. Should we look at the Griqua today with European admixture as examples of Earlier San?

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Who are you referring to - the Km.t?

If Supercar calls them Black he is guilty indeed of redundancy since Km.t means Black.
But no evidence that it refers to Black people.

quote:
Of course, of late, you decided to admit this truth, so why then are you whining about it?
The truth that it is refered to as the "Black"? But what is Black is what is in question. I say it is the land, not the peoples.

quote:
Your point still seems to be that you are miserable sore loser with no real point.
Stop trying to project your insecurities oh pedantic one.

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
How does calling indigenous tropical Africans, all with very visible levels of melanin, "black" mean that they all have to "uniform" dark shades any more than calling 'white' folks 'white' because they show little or neglectable visible levels of melanin, if not for your short attention span in grasping what is being said?
According to you, then all people with non-"negligible" amounts of melanin are Black then. That means virtually all Native Americans, virtually all South Asians, And the majority of Middle Easterners. Unless you can show that all these people are lighter than all Indigenous Africans, then your claim is floundering.
The majority of your post is just dodging around this simple fact by arguing semantics.

quote:
Really, so no one knew there was such a thing as the color black, before the Europeans made them realize it exists? This is based on what objective sourcing.
Nice try. No one called anyone Black unless they were truly close to Black in complexion. Only Europeans who had such contrastingly light skin would call lighter brown people Black later on because IN CONTRAST TO THEM, they were still very dark.

quote:
Feel free to show me an instance where a leucodermic Italian turned the same color as "Khoisan" or "Sandawe". And why bother with "some"? you took on Italians, as a generalized entity, as though you could make some point, so now why it has to be 'some' of them.
Because Italians are not singular entities. Feel free to look at Sardinians. You will see people who tan to a medium brown. Or many Native American or Middle Eastern populations for that matter.

quote:
I can see that you've said that twice now already; so now, feel free to answer the question.
False claim. Just look up Leukaethiopes and either Pliny or Ptolemy.
In fact Rasol, Altakrury, and Djehuti discussed it here.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Mustafano, your messy ranting addresses nothing as usual.

Try again...

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
Again, nice try.
Thank you. Now 'try' producing evidence of indigenous 'leucodermic' Sandawe and tropical Africans, for which you have produced 'zip' to date.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

How does calling indigenous tropical Africans, all with very visible levels of melanin, "black" mean that they all have to "uniform" dark shades any more than calling 'white' folks 'white' because they show little or neglectable visible levels of melanin, if not for your short attention span in grasping what is being said?
According to you, then all people with non-"negligible" amounts of melanin are Black then. That means virtually all Native Americans, virtually all South Asians, And the majority of Middle Easterners. Unless you can show that all these people are lighter than all Indigenous Africans, then your claim is floundering.

You bet, everyone who falls well within tropical African ranges in terms of skin pigmentation are essentially 'black', just not Africans. I've already shown this with two maps already, which will never penetrate that skull of yours.

quote:
Mustafino:

The majority of your post is just dodging around this simple fact by arguing semantics.

I show you data, and you inject semantics into it; it is a game you started, by the pointless talk of light brown vs dark brown tropical Africans, and so, I'll see to it that I play it well.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
Really, so no one knew there was such a thing as the color black, before the Europeans made them realize it exists? This is based on what objective sourcing.
Nice try. No one called anyone Black unless they were truly close to Black in complexion.

Well, where is your objective sources for the sweepingly bizarre claim you made? Don't tell me that you have none.

quote:
Mustafino:

Only Europeans who had such contrastingly light skin would call lighter brown people Black later on because IN CONTRAST TO THEM, they were still very dark.

So the ancients had no concept of skin color, including 'black', until "later" [whatever that means] Europeans told the world that such thing exists?...and this is based on what objective sourcing?

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
Feel free to show me an instance where a leucodermic Italian turned the same color as "Khoisan" or "Sandawe". And why bother with "some"? you took on Italians, as a generalized entity, as though you could make some point, so now why it has to be 'some' of them.
Because Italians are not singular entities.

Why then did you treat them like one, as though you had a point to make by that sweeping generalization?

quote:
Mustafino:

Feel free to look at Sardinians. You will see people who tan to a medium brown. Or many Native American or Middle Eastern populations for that matter.

Lol. So, the Italians couldn't rescue you from your sweeping claims, and now the Sardinians? Produce the same that was requested for the Italians.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
I can see that you've said that twice now already; so now, feel free to answer the question.
False claim. Just look up Leukaethiopes and either Pliny or Ptolemy.
In fact Rasol, Altakrury, and Djehuti discussed it here.

The question is: what do you understand by "Leukaethiopes"? Don't tell me that you blindly cited the word, and that Rasol et al. know this better than you.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Lighter skinned people in the region people were usually referred to as Aethiops. I just gave you a reference that you knew the subject already. Nice try.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Lighter skinned people in the region people were usually referred to as Aethiops.

Does this include Kushites?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Lighter skinned people in the region people were usually referred to as Aethiops.
Does this include Kushites?

Typo. I meant to type: Lighter skinned people in the region people where people were usually referred to as Aethiops
If I recall the map though it was somewhere south of Libya where they were placed.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Lighter skinned people in the region people were usually referred to as Aethiops.
Does this include Kushites?
Typo. I meant to type: Lighter skinned people in the region people where people were usually referred to as Aethiops
If I recall the map though it was somewhere south of Libya where they were placed.

First of all, doesn't this refute your proclamation that ancients had no color concept. Secondly, why do you think a combined reference to "Aethiops" and "leuko" was made?

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Thanks much Clyde for the link, and note that the tuns, baktuns, etc., of Olmec/Mayan time are the precession based 20 x 13 = 360.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
First of all, doesn't this refute your proclamation that ancients had no color concept. Secondly, why do you think a combined reference to "Aethiops" and "leuko" was made?

I never said they didn't use colors in decriptive terms. I said they didn't use color as in concept of races. Aethiops meant burnt faces. Not Black. Leuko meant White or Light. Furthermore, they didn't call THEMSELVES Leuko anything. Why would they?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
First of all, doesn't this refute your proclamation that ancients had no color concept. Secondly, why do you think a combined reference to "Aethiops" and "leuko" was made?
I never said they didn't use colors in decriptive terms. I said they didn't use color as in concept of races.

Nice try with the attempt to flip flop, but even so, you'd still be wrong.

quote:
Mustafino:

Aethiops meant burnt faces. Not Black. Leuko meant White or Light. Furthermore, they didn't call THEMSELVES Leuko anything. Why would they?

Why would they be called 'burnt faces', if it was not meant to be a euphemism for their dark skin? I believe the question was: why do you think a combined reference to "Aethiops" and "leuko" was made? Try answering it anytime in our lifetime.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Again, show I flip flopped with a direct quote. Burnt faces. Tans. Greeks saw many Africans as having extreme tans. One that was with a lighter tan, Light Burnt Face. Self explanatory.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
First of all, doesn't this refute your proclamation that ancients had no color concept. Secondly, why do you think a combined reference to "Aethiops" and "leuko" was made?

^ If you let Mustafano babble for long enough he will usually refute his earlier comments, instead of giving honest answers to basic questions as you have challenged him to do. [Smile]

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Direct quote please. I stated the ancients did not have color coded racial concepts. Not that they were colorblind. In fact, it was that lack of colorblindness that would be missing for them to call people of multiple hues by one color. Even the Greeks had difficulty with that though comparitively the Africans were darker on a whole, so they created many names for people of Africa, not just one.

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Thanks much Clyde for the link, and note that the tuns, baktuns, etc., of Olmec/Mayan time are the precession based 20 x 13 = 360.

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :

No. The Maya long count calendar is based on a base 20 withthe exception that at the "month" unit it is 18 not 20. thus a tun is 20x18= 360 days. after that the system goes back to 20.

your other number is the "sacred calendar" of 13 day names x 20 =260 not 360.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to provide me with the exaxct quote from the Popol vuh and a full citation. I don't think it exists.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Hey Mustafino, since you're not "hyper diffusionist," how diffusionist are you?

Do you think the ancients of circa 2000 B.C. could sail across oceans?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Sail? No, but row, yes. That is how polynesia got colonized.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

So a sail is the difference between "hyperdiffusionism" and "what really happened?" Strange.

Do you think the ancients sailed across the Atlantic circa 2000 B.C.?

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Is it realistic to think that the ancients of circa 2000 B.C. did not use sails?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Again, show I flip flopped with a direct quote. Burnt faces.

No problem:

quote:
Mustafin:

And Europeans introduced the concept of Blacks. Doesn't it make the concept any less vague or accurate.

….Nice try. No one called anyone Black unless they were truly close to Black in complexion. Only Europeans who had such contrastingly light skin would call lighter brown people Black later on because IN CONTRAST TO THEM, they were still very dark.

And then, this…

quote:
Mustafin:

Lighter skinned people in the region people were usually referred to as Aethiops. I just gave you a reference that you knew the subject already. Nice try.

First of all, the ancient Greek historians did reference Egyptians as 'black'. So this could not have been a 'later on' development. And then you speak of "Leukaethiops"; now, if "leukeathiopes" means light skin 'aethiopes', then what was the term for 'tan' folks?

More over, the Kemetians referred to themselves as "kmtyw" and the lighter toned Asiatics "deshret". Again, destroying your notion that these weren't ethnic reference, and hence, racial.

quote:
Mustafin:

Tans. Greeks saw many Africans as having extreme tans. One that was with a lighter tan, Light Burnt Face. Self explanatory.

So, the Kushites were "tan", since they were most definitely amongst the Aethiops. Then again, what would "leukaethiops" entail? What is 'extreme tan', if not essentially 'black' skin?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Some may have made it across, but not enough to make an impact. Survivors of storms and what not. Neither did they make it across the Pacific. They followed the coast. Easter Island is the farthest they got island hopping.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Supercar, Greeks were European and later. But they didn't call them Black.
And feel free to show evidence from actual Egyptian writing in ancient times that they called the lighter people deshret. Not the red land.
Please show sources.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:

Supercar, Greeks were European and later. But they didn't call them Black.
And feel free to show evidence from actual Egyptian writing in ancient times that they called the lighter people deshret. Not the red land.
Please show sources.

.

You said:

No one called anyone Black unless they were truly close to Black in complexion. Only Europeans who had such contrastingly light skin would call lighter brown people Black later on because IN CONTRAST TO THEM, they were still very dark.

Well, this would be a lie, because Greek made references to Egyptians as 'blacks'. According to you, this would have made them [the Egyptians] 'jet black', in order to be called such...which would obviously be a lie that you cannot backup.

Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term. What does it mean?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Mustafino, the Greeks, Phoenicians, Egptians, and Atlantioi, were in large sailing ships circa 2000 B.C., didn't you know that?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

Flip flop again. Which is it: "Burnt faces" or "land"? If 'burnt faces", how is this not a reference to their dark skin? If it means "land", how come the ancient Greeks never referenced it to European lands?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.
Flip flop again. Which is it: "Burnt faces" or "land"? If 'burnt faces", how is this not a reference to their dark skin? If it means "land", how come the ancient Greeks never referenced it to European lands?

Are you stupid or just pretending to be? Km't is not a Greek word. What do the Greeks have to do with EGYPTIIAN usage of referring to the Black land?

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Mustafino, the Greeks, Phoenicians, Egptians, and Atlantioi, were in large sailing ships circa 2000 B.C., didn't you know that?

Sea sailors. Not Oceans and they were not on the West coast of Africa, your point?

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Then why did the ancient Mexicans say that they sailed from across the eastern ocean to begin their civilization?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.
Flip flop again. Which is it: "Burnt faces" or "land"? If 'burnt faces", how is this not a reference to their dark skin? If it means "land", how come the ancient Greeks never referenced it to European lands?
Are you stupid or just pretending to be? Km't is not a Greek word.

I know for a fact that you aren't pretending to be stupid. Where is 'kmt' in what you are citing? Go and learn to read.

quote:
Mustafin:

What do the Greeks have to do with EGYPTIIAN usage of referring to the Black land?

You tell me, since I'm now learning that claim from you. In the meantime, try and actually answer the questions and points that I did make.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Do you think that the Phoenicians were afraid to sail through the Pillars of Hercules?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
I know for a fact that you aren't pretending to be stupid. Where is 'kmt' in what you are citing? Go and learn to read.

Yep, you are an idiot. I have never referenced land in the terms the Greeks used.

Your whole argument is a strawman. pathetic.

quote:
Originally posted by James I. Nienhuis:
Then why did the ancient Mexicans say that they sailed from across the eastern ocean to begin their civilization?

Feel free to source that claim.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
I know for a fact that you aren't pretending to be stupid. Where is 'kmt' in what you are citing? Go and learn to read.
Yep, you are an idiot. I have never referenced land in the terms the Greeks used.

Yep, you're an amnesiac whore. Whose word is this:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

quote:
Mustafin:

Your whole argument is a strawman. pathetic.

You wish your argument made enough sense to even be given a degraded label as 'strawman'. Caught with your pants down again. Cheers.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

Are you really that stupid? You couldn't figure out Each sentence addressed a different part of your post?

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. FOR GREEKS
In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. REFERING TO DESHERET

You truly do like arguing strawmen.

[ 31. March 2007, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Are you really that stupid? You couldn't figure out Each sentence addressed a different part of your post?

Are you retarded? You couldn't figure out that "kmt' doesn't exist in the post you were addressing. It is another figment of your imagination.

quote:
Mustafino:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. FOR GREEKS
In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people.

If the Greeks called "them" burnt faces, with Aethiops, how then can you come back like a deranged cow, saying that it references land, and not people. Are you that thick skulled?

quote:
Mustafino:

REFERING TO DESHERET

You truly do like arguing strawmen.

None of your points make any sense. What role does 'deshret' play in here?...nothing of course. You asked me whether the term was used by Kemetians in reference to people, to which I responded, and now you are mindlessly ranting some nonsense about the term. What gives?

[ 31. March 2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
said they called them burnt faces, not Black

Wrong again, they actually called them Melas as well as Aeithopes.

Melas is Greek for Black. Actually the term Melanin for the Black skin pigment also comes from this term, which the Greeks used for Egyptians other Africans, Indians and all very dark skinned peoples.

This is obvious. Mod.L., from Gk. melas (gen. melanos) "black"

The question is how does any of this help you?

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Are you retarded? You couldn't figure out that "kmt' doesn't exist in the post you were addressing. It is another figment of your imagination.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 1: "because Greek made references to Egyptians as 'blacks'"
Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."

quote:
If the Greeks called "them" burnt faces, with Aethiops, how then can you come back like a deranged cow, saying that it references land, and not people. Are you that thick skulled?

Deshret. Please show how this has to do with the Greeks calling anyone burnt faces.

quote:
are truly arguing like a salivating fool in an mental asylum. None of your points make any sense. What role does 'deshret' play in here?...nothing of course. You asked me whether the term was used by Kemetians in reference to people, to which I responded, and now you are mindlessly ranting some nonsense about the term. What gives?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."
I recognize the term shown for land, no evidence in that link that it was used for people.

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]
quote:
said they called them burnt faces, not Black
Wrong again, they actually called them Melas as well as Aeithopes.

Melas is Greek for Black. Actually the term Melanin for the Black skin pigment also comes from this term, which the Greeks used for Egyptians other Africans, Indians and all very dark skinned peoples.

This is obvious. Mod.L., from Gk. melas (gen. melanos) "black"

I think this guy was addressing you:

quote:
Afrocentric misreadings of classical texts

The meaning of melas and melanochroes

In their efforts to paint the ancient Egyptians "black," Afrocentrists rely heavily on misreadings of ancient Greek and Roman literature – many of which stem from a severe misunderstanding of the historical use of color terms. In many ages and many cultures, descriptions of human complexion as "white," "brown" or "black" would correspond in modern usage to "fair," "tan" or "swarthy." According to the anthropologist Peter Frost (*):

This older, more relative sense has been noted in other culture areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans.

In the same vein, the Greek words melas and leukos when applied to skin color were usually equivalent to "swarthy" and "fair" rather than the racial terms "black" or "white" as Afrocentrists would prefer (see definition of melas in the online LSJ lexicon). There are numerous examples of this usage in Greek literature – one unequivocal example describes an aged Odysseus magically regaining his youth (Homer Odyssey 16.172-176):

With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.

In describing the skin tone of Odysseus, Homer used the word melanchroiês – a form of the same word that other Greeks sometimes chose to describe Egyptians, and one that is the source of much Afrocentric misunderstanding. If taken literally, the word would mean "black-skinned"; however, it is clear from the context that Homer means "of swarthy complexion" rather than racially "black," and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. Otherwise we would have to assume that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus transformed into a black African! This despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as Greek-looking and certainly not "black" in any modern racial sense.

Likewise, when the ancient writers described Egyptians as melas or melanchroes, they almost surely meant "dark-complected" rather than literally "black." Any ambiguity in such descriptions can be resolved by noting that other classical writers such as Manilius specifically identified the Egyptians as medium in complexion rather than "black," and that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter and finer-featured than their African neighbors to the south.
]http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html

I disagree with him that all Egyptians were lighte r than their southern neighbors, and I disagree with other claims that they were darker than their eastern neighbors. But he does make a valid point that melas was used comparitively and not as an absolute by Greeks on many occasions.

Posted by James I. Nienhuis (Member # 13209) on :

Khem was Chem, or Cham, or Ham, the Land of Ham, he was also known as Chronos, the Time Man, privy to the precession mapping scheme of the ancients.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Rasol wrote: This is obvious. Mod.L., from Gk. melas (gen. melanos) "black".

quote:
Mustafano wrote:
I think this guy was addressing you

Nope, its addressed to you or anyone else who denies that Greeks referred to ancient Africans as Blacks.

Or maybe you've decided to withdraw your denial on this point as well like you usually do when cornered.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
In many ages and many cultures, descriptions of human complexion as "white," "brown" or "black" would correspond in modern usage to "fair," "tan" or "swarthy."

Since modern use of 'black' brown or 'white' might also be *analogised* to fair, tan or swarthy, the above statement makes no point.

It neither changes, nor addresses the fact the Ethiopians and Egyptians were referred to as Black by the Greeks. The only relevant *analogy* is in the sense that they are grouped collectively as Blacks, and distinguished from the already 'swarthy' Greeks in this respect.

Try again....

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Are you retarded? You couldn't figure out that "kmt' doesn't exist in the post you were addressing. It is another figment of your imagination.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 1: "because Greek made references to Egyptians as 'blacks'"

Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."

Where is "kmt" in the supposed citation, and why haven't you also posted the posts they were responding to? It's obvious, because you are retarded.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
If the Greeks called "them" burnt faces, with Aethiops, how then can you come back like a deranged cow, saying that it references land, and not people. Are you that thick skulled?
Deshret. Please show how this has to do with the Greeks calling anyone burnt faces.

It is your claim. So tell us, what does deshret have to do with 'burnt faces'.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
are truly arguing like a salivating fool in an mental asylum. None of your points make any sense. What role does 'deshret' play in here?...nothing of course. You asked me whether the term was used by Kemetians in reference to people, to which I responded, and now you are mindlessly ranting some nonsense about the term. What gives?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."

I recognize the term shown for land, no evidence in that link that it was used for people.

Too bad, it is in your link, you know the one that you lied about having read, and that it purportedly supports what you are saying, which in turn, you have no clue about.

So, now answer these questions:

#1 .If Aethiopes means 'burnt faces', how can it not be in reference to the black skin?

#2. If Kushites were called 'aethiops' and some north Africans were called 'leukaethiops', what do you suppose this means?...perhaps 'white tan' and 'black tan'?

#3. If Aethiops means 'land' as you say, which undoubtedly contradicts your first claim in #1, then how come Greeks never referenced European lands as "Aethiops'? Which is it; 'burnt face' or 'land'.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

James Allen gives the following example of the meaning of Dshrutu - [literally red people] -> "The Red ones are beautiful".

Again it is a reference to people, not land.

The mdw ntr is filled with Kemetians complaining of Dshretu coming down into Africa from Asia, and wreaking havoc.

They are not speaking of land.....obviously, they are speaking of people.

Moreover the term Deshrutu ... is *never* used to refer to Africans from the Sudan, or Punt. Whereas it is used for Asiatics from as far away as Lebanon [which has forests and pine trees].

Note: Africans from the Nubian desert remain nontheless 'black'. Asiatics from the Forests of Lebanon remain nontheless red. The reference is to the skin color of the people....not land.

You can run but you can't hide. [Smile]

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Rasol wrote: This is obvious. Mod.L., from Gk. melas (gen. melanos) "black".

quote:
Mustafano wrote:
I think this guy was addressing you
Nope, its addressed to you or anyone else who denies that Greeks referred to ancient Africans as Blacks.

Or maybe you've decided to withdraw your denial on this point as well like you usually do when cornered.

I await your direct quote where that guy claims Greeks called Egyptians Blacks.

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
It neither changes, nor addresses the fact the Ethiopians and Egyptians were referred to as Black by the Greeks. The only relevant *analogy* is in the sense that they are grouped collectively as Blacks, and distinguished from the already 'swarthy' Greeks in this respect.

Try again.... [/QB]

I await your direct quote that Egyptians were collectively grouped as Blacks.

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar:
Where is "kmt" in the supposed citation, and why haven't you also posted the posts they were responding to? It's obvious, because you are retarded.

Strawman.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000133
That was the post you were responding to. No Kmt mentioned anywhere. I think you need to analyze yourself.

quote:
It is your claim. So tell us, what does deshret have to do with 'burnt faces'.

No it's not and I already proved it with links.

quote:
Too bad, it is in your link, you know the one that you lied about having read, and that it purportedly supports what you are saying, which in turn, you have no clue about.

Feel free to quote directly from the link.

quote:
#1 .If Aethiopes means 'burnt faces', how can it not be in reference to the black skin?

Any tanned person can have a burnt face.

quote:
#2. If Kushites were called 'aethiops' and some north Africans were called 'leukaethiops', what do you suppose this means?...perhaps 'white tan' and 'black tan'?

We can only speculate. But considering that leuko can be comparative as well "Light", It could mean light burnt faces.

quote:
#3. If Aethiops means 'land' as you say

Never said that. Keep trying to milk that strawman.

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
James Allen gives the following example of the meaning of Dshrutu - [literally red people] -> "The Red ones are beautiful".
Again it is a reference to people, not land.

Is James Allen an ancient egyptian? No? Then he must be quoting some ancient text right? Could you give me that source please.

quote:
The mdw ntr is filled with Kemetians complaining of Dshretu coming down into Africa from Asia, and wreaking havoc.
They are not speaking of land.....obviously, they are speaking of people.

Could you give me a direct quote to verify.

quote:
Moreover the term Deshrutu ... is *never* used to refer to Africans from the Sudan, or Punt. Whereas it is used for Asiatics from as far away as Lebanon [which has forests and pine trees].

Could you reference that the Sudanese Africans or the people from Punt lived in the region referred to as Desheret?

quote:
Note: Africans from the Nubian desert remain nontheless 'black'. Asiatics from the Forests of Lebanon remain nontheless red. The reference is to the skin color of the people....not land.

Again, can you reference these claims with actual sources from texts?

quote:
You can run but you can't hide.

No need to hide. If you can point to actual sources with direct quotes I will believe you.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar:
Where is "kmt" in the supposed citation, and why haven't you also posted the posts they were responding to? It's obvious, because you are retarded.
Strawman.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000133
That was the post you were responding to. No Kmt mentioned anywhere. I think you need to analyze yourself.

So I was responding to myself and not to you? Don't you think it's long overdue that you take your medications.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
It is your claim. So tell us, what does deshret have to do with 'burnt faces'.
No it's not and I already proved it with links.

So you've already provided links where it says 'deshret' doesn't mean 'burnt faces'?

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
Too bad, it is in your link, you know the one that you lied about having read, and that it purportedly supports what you are saying, which in turn, you have no clue about.
Feel free to quote directly from the link.

Feel free to click on the link that you proclaimed to have read.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
#1 .If Aethiopes means 'burnt faces', how can it not be in reference to the black skin?
Any tanned person can have a burnt face.

So the Greeks referred to 'burnt faces', but were not really referencing skin color? So who were the 'aethiops', the 'black tan' folks, while 'leukaethiops' means 'white tan'? Why didn't the Greeks call Egyptians 'Aethiops' but referenced it on certain north Africans and Kushites?

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
#2. If Kushites were called 'aethiops' and some north Africans were called 'leukaethiops', what do you suppose this means?...perhaps 'white tan' and 'black tan'?
We can only speculate. But considering that leuko can be comparative as well "Light", It could mean light burnt faces.

And 'aethiops' would be what...'black tan' or 'black burnt faces'? Leuko means 'white', so it cannot mean 'light'.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
#3. If Aethiops means 'land' as you say
Never said that. Keep trying to milk that strawman.

You said:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

^Doesn't look like a strawman, it looks like you are suffering from amnesia.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Where is "kmt" in the supposed citation, and why haven't you also posted the posts they were responding to? It's obvious, because you are retarded.
Strawman.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000133
That was the post they were responding to. No Kmt mentioned anywhere. I think you need to analyze yourself.
So I was responding to myself and not to you? Don't you think it's long overdue that you take your medications.

I see your deductive powers are non existent that you couldn't reference your own post and see I did a typo.

quote:
So you've already provided links where it says 'deshret' doesn't mean 'burnt faces'?

Strawmen. That is the best kind of argument you can come up with?

quote:
Feel free to click on the link that you proclaimed to have read.

I did. Sadly even though you did, your reading comprehension didn't help.

quote:
So the Greeks referred to 'burnt faces', but were not really referencing skin color?

Sure, but probably in context of their own experience. Darker skinned people usually were burnt in the sun. Or maybe refering to how burnt wood looked. No ancient etymology dictionary.

quote:
So who were the 'aethiops', the 'black tan' folks, while 'leukaethiops' means 'white tan'? Why didn't the Greeks call Egyptians 'Aethiops' but referenced it on certain north Africans and Kushites?

No, that would have been melanoaethiops. So it just meant bornt faces. Never heard of a North African referenced with it, but it could be. Kushites and some Egyptians were darker, so they probably were described as such.
Remember the Aethiops that came to help Troy.

quote:
And 'aethiops' would be what...'black tan' or 'black burnt faces'? Leuko means 'white', so it cannot mean 'light'.

Nope. Just burnt face. dark or black burnt face would have been melanoaethiops.

quote:
You said:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

^Doesn't look like a strawman, it looks like you are suffering from amnesia.

in reference to this post.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 1: "because Greek made references to Egyptians as 'blacks'"
I said they called them burnt faces, not Black.
Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."
In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people

And I have amnesia?

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

I see your deductive powers are non existent that you couldn't reference your own post and see I did a typo.

Nope, I don't have deductive powers to assume a troll, well known for intentionally misquoting people and fabricating claims, would "accidentally' be misquoting me.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
So you've already provided links where it says 'deshret' doesn't mean 'burnt faces'?
Strawmen. That is the best kind of argument you can come up with?

You wish it were a strawman. Com'on back it up, and stop cowering.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
Feel free to click on the link that you proclaimed to have read.
I did. Sadly even though you did, your reading comprehension didn't help.

Well, if you had read it, you would have come across the term. You are either blind or just plain dumb [and illiterate].

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
So the Greeks referred to 'burnt faces', but were not really referencing skin color?
Sure, but probably in context of their own experience. Darker skinned people usually were burnt in the sun. Or maybe refering to how burnt wood looked. No ancient etymology dictionary.

Lol. So how come they referred to Kushites as "aethiops". Did they assume that such dark skin was simply "tanning" or the "burn of the sun"? You keep saying it has nothing to do with reference to skin, or ethnicity, and yet, you come up with terms like "melanoaethiops", "leukaethiops", and "aethiops". How did they quantify these. What texts back your claims?

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
So who were the 'aethiops', the 'black tan' folks, while 'leukaethiops' means 'white tan'? Why didn't the Greeks call Egyptians 'Aethiops' but referenced it on certain north Africans and Kushites?
No, that would have been melanoaethiops. So it just meant bornt faces. Never heard of a North African referenced with it, but it could be. Kushites and some Egyptians were darker, so they probably were described as such.

Produce the reference where Egyptians were referred to as "aethiops". And who were the "leukaethiopes" applied to, if not people from the North African regions? Again, why were Kushites generally simply referred to as "aethiops", as opposed to "melanoaethiops"?

quote:
Mustafino:

Remember the Aethiops that came to help Troy.

What relevance has this to do with what you are being asked?

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
And 'aethiops' would be what...'black tan' or 'black burnt faces'? Leuko means 'white', so it cannot mean 'light'.
Nope. Just burnt face. dark or black burnt face would have been melanoaethiops.

So, "aethiops" means "burnt face", and "melanoaethiopes" means "black or dark burnt face", and "leucaethiops" means "light burnt face", right? How come then Kushites were generally referred to as just "aethiops", and it was never referenced on Egyptians as far as I can recall, and so, who were the other two: "melanoatheopes" and "leukaethiops"? Shoot.

quote:
Mustafino:

quote:
You said:

Wrong. I said they called them burnt faces, not Black. In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people. Try again.

^Doesn't look like a strawman, it looks like you are suffering from amnesia.
in reference to this post.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003266;p=3#000134
Claim 1: "because Greek made references to Egyptians as 'blacks'"
I said they called them burnt faces, not Black.
Claim 2: "Yes: Deshret. It is not an English term; it is a mdu ntr term, which is also acknowledged in the link you provided earlier, only now to act like you've never heard of the term."
In the link I posted they recognized it as a term for land, not people

And I have amnesia?

Of course you do, because this isn't the format with which you wrote your orginal statement. I posted the 'original' format. Better luck next time.

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Of course you do, because this isn't the format with which you wrote your orginal statement. I posted the 'original' format. Better luck next time.
Once I clarified what I stated, your argument was over with, the fact that you keep on posting it shows you are just trying to argue a strawman.

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:
Oh please. that is the dumbest argument I have seen. "Oh I misunderstood what you said, but even though you clarified I will keep pretending you meant something else for the sake of trying to sound right."

Truly pathetic.

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mustafino:

Oh please. that is the dumbest argument I have seen. "Oh I misunderstood what you said, but even though you clarified I will keep pretending you meant something else for the sake of trying to sound right."

Truly pathetic.

Stop talking like a chick, and get the brains to properly cite people, not schizophrenic hallucinations in that crackhead of yours. Lol.