The Nubian Pharaohs: Black Kings on the Nile by Dominique Valbelle and Charles Bonnet
Product Details: Cloth: 216 pages; 10 x 13 inches Your Price: $25.17 ISBN: 977416010X Available: October 2006
Description:
In 2003, a Swiss archaeological team working in northern Sudan uncovered one of the most remarkable Egyptological finds in recent years. At the site known as Kerma, near the third cataract of the Nile, archaeologist Charles Bonnet and his team discovered a ditch within a temple from the ancient city of Pnoubs, which contained seven monumental black granite statues. Magnificently sculpted, and in an excellent state of preservation, they portrayed five pharaonic rulers, including Taharqa and Tanoutamon, the last two pharaohs of the 'Nubian' Dynasty, when Egypt was ruled by kings from the lands of modern-day Sudan. For over half a century, the Nubian pharaohs governed a combined kingdom of Egypt and Nubia, with an empire stretching from the Delta to the upper reaches of the Nile.
The seven statues, with their exquisite workmanship, transform our understanding of the art of this period. In particular, the colossal statue of Taharqa--almost certainly done by an Egyptian sculptor--is a masterpiece of stone artwork. Beautifully illustrated with over 170 color photographs, The Nubian Pharaohs illuminates the epic history of this little-known historical era, when the pharaohs of Egypt came from Sudan. In this major new book, which combines the latest archaeological research with stunning photography, Charles Bonnet and Dominique Valbelle narrate the incredible story of their discovery--one that will change our understanding of Egypt and Africa in the ancient world.
About The Author:
Dominique Valbelle is president of the French Egyptology Association and professor at the Sorbonne.
CHARLES BONNET is professor emeritus at the University of Geneva and former president of the International Nubiology Association. Since 1977, he has been the director of the Kerma site.
.
[ 11. July 2006, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: sammy ]
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see somewhat of a double standard that most Egyptologist dare not to discuss the race of the ancient Egyptians in modern terms but refer to the 25th dyansty as ''the black pharoahs''. Yet, we don't hear of the Persians nor the Ptolemaic pharoahs being called the ''white pharoahs'',and yet they wish to push modern interpretations on the so-called Nubians but not the ancient Egyptians.
Archaeologist,Egyptologist,nor Historians are qualified scientifically to speak of biological affinities of ancient populations. When reading this publication I suggest you take the archaeological content but discard judgements on ethnicity or even nationality made.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet they wish to push modern interpretations on the so-called Nubians but not the ancient Egyptians.
lol.
The 'good' thing about blatant hyporcrisy is that it is easily revealed and tends to bring the whole racist enterprise of Eurocentrism crumbling down like the house of cards it is:
More Black Kings of the Nile: Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol said: The 'good' thing about blatant hyporcrisy is that it is easily revealed and tends to bring the whole racist enterprise of Eurocentrism crumbling down like the house of cards it is:
Thanks for the science! This is great, truth shall continually unveil itself, know what I mean? Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing about that statue of tarharqa, look how NARROW the nose and lips are! Certainly doesnt strike me as the stereotypical "black" African features to me. It is funny how all these books on ancient Sudan seem to mention the name NUBIA and BLACK together in order to FORCE us to identify the two as being the SAME. This is OBVIOUSLY ethnocentric and racial history, since NO OTHER civilization on the planet is so strongly with s a particular skin color. The Chinese dynasties aren't called the "yellow" dynasties, the European kings arent called the "white" kings and so on. This is why I refuse to accept the nonsense of "Nubia" as a REAL historical and ethnic entity in 3000-200 BC, because it ISNT. It is PURELY a fabrication of WHITE Eurocentric historians and archaeologists, that want to paint Egypt one color and "Nubians" a different color, where the "Nubians" are black and the Egyptians are white. The reson this is NONSENSE is that many so-called black "Nubians" have the same features as other Eastern Africans, namely narrow noses, lips and medium brown as opposed to DARK brown skin. All Sudanese do not have the same color, complexion OR features and it is ridiculous to lump them all together. Tarharqa was a Kushite and the 25th dynasty was a KUSHITE dynasty, not a "Nubian" dynasty, since there was no country or civilization called "Nubia" at the time.
Funny how the Egyptians themselves had no such hang ups:
Note this workshop producing "black" images of the king. Egyptologists and others want to make us believe that Nubians were literally "blue black" since the Egyptians often depicted them that way, yet the jet black images of pharoahs and others are symbolic. Symbolic of WHAT? Symbolic of Egypt's association with black people? Symbolic of the power in the color black? Pride in ones blackness? And what about all the statues in Egypt made from the EXACT same rock as that of Tarharqa? It is mind blowing how Egyptologists perform such mental gymnastics to AVOID that black and brown were veiwed as MUCH the same in Egyptian art (dark skin), allowing Nubians AND Egyptians to be portrayed as BOTH black AND brown, and I am not just talking about the Ka statues either. It is similar to the way pink skinned people are called white, where pink, tan and white are all considered the SAME thing (light skin).
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Funny thing about that statue of tarharqa, look how NARROW the nose and lips are! Certainly doesnt strike me as the stereotypical "black" African features to me. It is funny how all these books on ancient Sudan seem to mention the name NUBIA and BLACK together in order to FORCE us to identify the two as being the SAME. This is OBVIOUSLY ethnocentric and racial history, since NO OTHER civilization on the planet is so strongly with s a particular skin color. The Chinese dynasties aren't called the "yellow" dynasties, the European kings arent called the "white" kings and so on. This is why I refuse to accept the nonsense of "Nubia" as a REAL historical and ethnic entity in 3000-200 BC, because it ISNT. It is PURELY a fabrication of WHITE Eurocentric historians and archaeologists, that want to paint Egypt one color and "Nubians" a different color, where the "Nubians" are black and the Egyptians are white. The reson this is NONSENSE is that many so-called black "Nubians" have the same features as other Eastern Africans, namely narrow noses, lips and medium brown as opposed to DARK brown skin. All Sudanese do not have the same color, complexion OR features and it is ridiculous to lump them all together. Tarharqa was a Kushite and the 25th dynasty was a KUSHITE dynasty, not a "Nubian" dynasty, since there was no country or civilization called "Nubia" at the time.
Funny how the Egyptians themselves had no such hang ups:
Note this workshop producing "black" images of the king. Egyptologists and others want to make us believe that Nubians were literally "blue black" since the Egyptians often depicted them that way, yet the jet black images of pharoahs and others are symbolic. Symbolic of WHAT? Symbolic of Egypt's association with black people? Symbolic of the power in the color black? Pride in ones blackness? And what about all the statues in Egypt made from the EXACT same rock as that of Tarharqa? It is mind blowing how Egyptologists perform such mental gymnastics to AVOID that black and brown were veiwed as MUCH the same in Egyptian art (dark skin), allowing Nubians AND Egyptians to be portrayed as BOTH black AND brown, and I am not just talking about the Ka statues either. It is similar to the way pink skinned people are called white, where pink, tan and white are all considered the SAME thing (light skin).
some nubians today do have a narrow nose and thin lips,but you know that is recent.look carefully,taharqa in that picture above has the nose cut off.so you can't tell if it is narrow or not.
you can tell if the nostrils are broad.the nostrils do not look however straight,you know the breathing area.The lips are not thick but not thin,but i have seen many statues of taharqa where the nose is clearly broad and not broken off and even the lips are thick.
WHEN peolpe talk about broad and thin noses,let's get something clear,the talk is about nostrils,not the bone or the area that goes up between the eyes. there are clearly some blacks that have a thinner nose but the nostrils at the end most that i have seen are broad.that is what we mean by broad or straight nose.TAHARQA'S nose is not like a broom stick.it is not poining toward me. so in that picture the nose is still nostrils are still broad.
many other pictures i have seen show other images of him and they show a broader upper nose that goes up toward the head,these are the majority.so those are more realistic images of him.
kushite nubians have these features,and most medieval nubians.all the alwans of of the kingdom of alwa in late ancient to early modern nubia had these features.
greeks,romans and other outsiders clearly mention that the kushites had kinky hair,broad noses and thick lips and on average dark skin.that is a topic that does not need to be open again of course their are a some africans with thin lips and do not have any other racial mixture. most east africans do not have thin lips or narrow noses,but some do.
let's be careful here because even most ancient egyptians had broad noses and thick lips,and the key is most not all.
quote:some nubians today do have a narrow nose and thin lips,but you know that is recent.look
^ Incorrect.
According to anthropologists the earliest known peoples of East Africa typically had long heads, relatively narrow noses and limited prognathism, most closely resembling modern EAst African populations such as Somali, Oromo, Afar and others. [Keita, Hiernaux, Brace]
In turn these populations most closely resemble ancient Naqada and Qustal populations - who - in turn, closely resemble each other, Mesolithic populations of "Nubia" and New and Old Kingdom Km.t. [Weeks, Keita, Brace].
And that is why even your 25th dynasty Kushites are diverse and don't all conform to physical stereotypes -> They never did. Shabaka.
So we ask you again to please present your source evidence, if you have any.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am talking about the nubians,not the earliest east africans.
nubians are early to east africa but came in later than these other group.
many in ta-seti did have long heads on average,but i never read anywhere that most had narrow noses.your nose could be narrow and broad at the nostrils and you could have a narrow nose and the nostrils could be straight.the latter is really the narrow nose.the former is still broad.
a some kushites in ancient lower nubia during the time of rome did in fact had narrow,straight noses,but they were a mixture of the greeks and romans that came in since we know that there was large scale intermarriage in later lower nubia.so you are right about the feature in this part of nubia.
upper and southern nubia was a different story,since we do have pictures and folks who traveled to kush.many folks in this region do have broad heads,but some do have long heads,but noses were broad.
egyptians on the other hand on average did have long heads,but many of the statues i have seen show them with broad noses and some with narrow noses.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That's the problem. Nubian as you describe it is and arbitrary nonsense word. According to which - Nubians came late to Nubia, after earlier "non Nubian" who were the original population of Nubia - rendering the entire concept oxymoronic.
There is no such thing as a Nubian in the context in which you wish to use the term -> pure negros of the nile valley, untainted by "race-mixing."
It's just a phony concept created by Europeans to apologise for the African prescense in Nile Valley Africa.
Unfortunately you are completely addicted to this nonsense, and as with most addicts, you can't kick your habits.
To wit:
please present your source evidence, if you have any
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: the kushites from kush are what i am talking about,since we know this region is diverse.we all agree to this before.you agreed with me awhile back when i first came here.TO DESCRIBE taharqa i will try to stick with kushite.
THE kushites came in later to east africa than these other groups IN EAST africa.when i mean kushites i am talking about those from pre-kerma and before pre-kerma kerma , after kerma,and those who formed the second kingdom of kush of course they had other names even before the first kingdom of kush .
many of the folks of ta-seti did have narrow heads,but some had broad head,most did have broad noses,and a few in later early ancient times had straight noses.many had thick lips,lips that are not so thick or thin and some had thin lips.
LATER the kushites from the south came in to this region and became the major group in wawat.this region that was wawat or ta-seti became known as kush once it was taken over by them.this region is what became lower nubia in late ancient times and later.
Many of these kushites in northern kush or what we called lower nubia did intermarry with greeks and romans and others in late ancient times,but not all.some did not intermarry at all.
most of the kushite art i have seen show kushites with broad heads like below,but there are some that have narrow heads,with broad noses,thick lips,thin lips,lips not so thick or thin and heads that are not that broad or long.
shabaka in that post,does not have thick or thin lips,his nose is broad at the nostrils,i could clearly see that,but the nose going up is narrow and thick. you could find these features in west,or central africa.
here is some art showing shabaka,with thick lips and lips that are not so thick or thin and all parts of this nose is broad,from the nostrils to the bridge going up the the head.THE first picture shows his nose is broad,but the bridge not as broad as the others below,but it is a broad nose.
SHABAKA- THE bridge of the nose and nostrils are broad here.
and here is a close look at another statue.If you look at the nostrils they stretch out,meaning this is a broad nose.the nostrils do not come at you,that would be a narrow nose or straight NOSE like bush.
LET ME put it this way, the nose is flat. not straight.that is what i mean by broad nose,because a broad nose could have a broad bridge to the head,or could be more narrow to the head,but if the nostrils are flat like below,i call that a broad nose,meaning nostrils are flat or turning side ways.THE bridge is BROAD,BUT narrow here ,OR thin but it is still flat so the bridge is not wide, but it is flat.
It does not stick out.the nose is not long OR POINT OUT LIKE the WITCH IN the original wizard of oz movie.I should have been more clear.
the masai was part of the original east african population.
I seen many pictures of them.MANY OF their noses ARE thin and flat at the bridge,but there nostrils are flat.they have flat noses.most of the original east african population was like this too.all of the original east africans nostrils were flat.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kenndo, skeletal evidence does not tell us about the "flatness" of soft tissue.
This makes your assertions about 'flatness' of noses of the original East African population another nonsense word, which cannot be substantiated, just like your use of "Nubian".
We can determine the shape of bony materials however.....
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian.
The skeletons are of very tall people.
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.
All their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, such as Somali, Oromo, Tutsi, and Masai. - The People of Africa, Jean Hiernaux.
^ Kenndo please present a scholastic source which specifically support your claims, or again be dismissed as someone who argues but but presents no evidence in support of his argument.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i just mention the masai.i know what they look like.i have book in my hands with pictures called the ways of man. I will AGREE WITH YOU RASOL on this point,that the masai have thinner noses on average,but the pictures i see shows that they have flat nostrils.the nostrils are not really big on average but are flat.of course some pictures in this book does show those masai that have broader nose bridges.
book-called the ways of man:an introduction to many culture.some stuff in this book it pull crap,but they do show pictures of different folks in the world.
authors-john jarolimmek and bertha davis.the african part in the book-igor kopytoff professer of anthropology.
I AM TAlkING ABOUT the kushites or later east africans called kushites and other later east africans like the bantu.
the bantu are from central africa and the kushites are from the central sahara and southern sahara.the folks from ta-seti as well.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
masai -the ones i see here have broad noses and some with thick lips,some with thinner lips and lips not so thick or thin and alot of the pictures below too.ijust gave you a book.that is a source. here is a living source.
the dinka and shilluk are orig. to the east african region too and the ones i see here have flat noses,and all here have broad brides shilluk Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: wait just a damn min.you are so hostile.
lol. Why are you swearing?
Why are you spamming irrelevant pictures while failing to answer the questions or produce any evidence?
Aren't those classic symptoms of debate failure?
It's simple: If you can't produce the required evidence - if all you can do is attempt to distract with picture spams.
Then, your case is dismissed.
The fact remains:
quote: The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian.
The skeletons are of very tall people.
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.
All their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, such as Somali, Oromo, Tutsi, and Masai.
Nubian Lady: Tutsi Man:
- The People of Africa, Jean Hiernaux
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the nubian lady has a flat nose.i could see that clearly.the nose it not like the the man below.his nose is up and pointing straight like a finger,the bridge of his nose is up and does not look flat,like the lady.i could show pictures of many nubians today who have features unlike that man or the lady,but she still clearly have a flat nose,it is just not like the ones in the pictures of the nubian kings above,but you could see clearly the lady nostrils stretch to her sides.the nostrils are not pointing straight.
the orig. east africans look like the pictures i show you.
kept fooling youself,the orig. east africans did not have a nose like that man,unless there was some later mixture,it may be the case for the lady too,but still clearly have a flat nose.
there are east africans with a narrow nose bridge,but flat nostrils.i do not buy that many of the first east africans had a nose like that man or like bush,or ex-leader reagan of the u.s.
there are only two ways a black would have a straight,high bridge narrow nose. either extreme climate,in europe during the ice age,you know a transformation,than later whites appear,but that transformation stays in europe until it is complete,maybe some before the full transformation some blacks may have head to india,with a straight nose,but i really doubt it.most likely it was later admixture.
two-the africans that have this straight nose with a high thin bridge like a western european ,are mostly likely have some form of mixture.it could be small.
see i think you do have agenda,and i don't trust you.
i think those books you are giving us,i think you are reading them not clearly.i bet if i had a chance to read them i will get a different idea.you have the close mind by the way and you are the oner parroting things that have not been really proven,or you just reading it wrong.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you are dismissed.you are like a child,winters is right about you,you know if have clearly show you pictures of the the the shilluk,etc,but instead of admiting you are wrong this time,you kept up with the dribble.you are haunted .
you are sick and need help. i think getting of the computer for awhile would do you some good.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Your childish tantrums and flame-attacks are amusing but are also dismissed, and won't distract anyone from your failures to produce any evidence of relevance to this discussion.
Your rage is the result of your own ineptitude and is typical of debate failure.
If you take the time to learn modern anthropolgy it would clear up your massive confusion.
Instead you would rather argue in ignorance, only to end up enraged at your ignorance being exposed.
I feel for you Kenndo, but it's no ones fault but your own.
quote:Kenndo pleads: The original east africans did not have a nose like that man
According to anthropologists - they did:
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. - Hiernaux.
Hiernaux's data:
quote: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
quote:Kenndo writes: keep fooling yourself
A good definition of a fool, is someone who argues against the facts without producing any facts.
posted
kushites,they came later or the folks between the first and 6th cataract.clearly shabaka have these features below and the rest of the kushites. many of the first east africans did not have these the broad noses like most kushites,they did share a common feature in nose type with a few kushites and that is a thin flat nose bridge with a flat nose or nostrils were flat.in other words kushites and the first east africans had flat noses.
This bronze statuette portrays a king, possibly King Shabaka of Dynasty 25, as Osiris. We see a king of imposing stature, with massive wrists and hands, a thick neck, high cheek bones, small ears, flattened nose and full lips--all fitting the body type of the Kushite (today’s Sudanese) kings of Dynasty 25. On close inspection, one can also see evidence that a second uraeus (cobra), a unique attribute of kings of that dynasty, was probably removed from the crown (probably at the same time as the king’s name was defaced from the pedestal). As noted elsewhere “… the Saite Dynasty which followed the Kushites did all it could to erase from the record any trace of these sovereigns who were ‘foreigners’ in the eyes of authentic Egyptians” (Institut du Monde Arabe. 1997:178, pl. 170).
Links to other views: ⇒ Larger View ⇒ Right Profile ⇒ Left Profile if scripting is off, click the ⇒ instead.
• • •
Links to others from Dynasty 25 and Contemporaries Amulet of Duamutef, Dyn. 25 Amulet of Imsety, Dyn. 25 Bronze Imhotep seated, Dyn. 25 (?) Bronze Nefertem pendant amulet, Dyn. 25 Bronze of a queen nursing, Dyn. 25 Bronze of Ptah, Memphis, Dyn. 25 Bronze ritual pendant of Osiris, Dyn. 25 Bronze ritual pendant of Osiris, Dyn. 25 Bronze statuette of Ptah, Dyn. 25 Faience amulet of Qebhsenuef, Dyn. 25 Five Udjat eyes amulet, Dyn. 25 Horus-the-Child as Amun, 776-656 BC Horus-the-Child, Dyn. 25, 776-656 BC Mentuemhet, prince of Thebes, Dyn. 25 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 25 Queen Aqaluqa as Isis nursing, Dyn. 25 Queen as Goddess Neith seated, Dyn. 25106
Links to others representing Osiris Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 18 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 22 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of King Psamtik I as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of King Psamtik I as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze ritual pendant of Osiris, Dyn. 25 Bronze ritual pendant of Osiris, Dyn. 25 King Ahmose II (?) as Osiris, Dynasty 26 King Amenemope (?) as Osiris, Dyn. 21 Osiris, King of the Afterlife, Dyn. 18 Osiris, King of the Afterlife, Dyn. 22 Osiris of an unknown king, Dyn. 18 (?) Osiris with Djed pillar on back, Dyn. 26 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 18 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 22 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 25 Tall bronze Osiris, Ptolemaic Period
Links to others of type Statuette-man Bacchus the child, Roman, 100 BC-200 AD Bes in terra-cotta, Dyn. 27 Bronze athlete, Rome, 96-192 AD Bronze Etruscan warrior, Etruria, 480 BC Bronze Herakles, Etruria, 500 BC Bronze Imhotep seated, Dyn. 25 (?) Bronze ithyphallic god Bes, Ptolemaic Bronze of a king as Nefertem, N.K. Bronze of a king as Orisiris, Dyn. 18-19 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 18 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 22 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of a king as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of King Psamtik I as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of King Psamtik I as Osiris, Dyn. 26 Bronze of King Sethi I as Nefertem, Dyn. 19 Bronze of Ptah, Memphis, Dyn. 25 Bronze ritual pendant of Osiris, Dyn. 25 Bronze Samnite gladiator, Rome, 30 BC-68 AD Bronze statuette of Anhur, Dyn. 20 Bronze statuette of Ptah, Dyn. 25 Bust of Zeus, Macedonian Dynasty Disrobing ephebe, Roman World, 50-300 AD Enameled feathers of Amun, Dyn. 18 Gilded wooden statuette. Early Dynastic God Bes as a Roman soldier 30 BC-200 AD Head, realistic portrait in stone, Dyn 18 Horus-the-Child, 1070-774 BC Horus-the-Child, Alexandria, 100-30 BC Horus-the-Child, Alexandria, 304-30 BC Horus-the-Child as a ruling king, Dyn. 18 Horus-the-Child as Amun, 776-656 BC Horus-the-Child, Dyn.19, 1300-1200 BC Horus-the-Child, Dyn. 25, 776-656 BC Horus-the-Child, heir to the king, Dyn. 26 Horus-the-Child, Ptolemaic, 200-100 BC Horus-the-Child, Ptolemaic, 304-30 BC Horus-the-Child riding a swan, 304-31 BC Imhotep, vizier and architect of King Djoser Ivory head of Emperor Constantine King Ahmose II (?) as Osiris, Dynasty 26 King Amenemope (?) as Osiris, Dyn. 21 King Amenhotep II (?) as Amun-Re, Dyn. 18 King as Horus-the-Child, Dyn. 12 King Horemheb as Amun-Re, Dyn. 18 King Nekaw II as Horus-the-child, Dyn.26 Osiris, King of the Afterlife, Dyn. 18 Osiris, King of the Afterlife, Dyn. 22 Osiris of an unknown king, Dyn. 18 (?) Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 18 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 22 Osiris-Neper, god of agriculture, Dyn. 25 Porphyry statue of Alexander The Great Pottery child head, Phoenicia, 1000-500 BC Pottery silenus (satyr), Greece, 350-300 BC Priest of Hapy, temple of Aswan, Dyn. 20 Ptah-Min of Memphis, Dyn. 20 Queen as Goddess Neith seated, Dyn. 25106
Ruling king as Khonsu, Dyn. 20 Sept, local prince of Nubia, Dyn. 12-13 Statue pedestal of Osorkon II, Dyn. 22 Statuette of a privileged man, Dyn. 18 Stone bust of a scribe, Dyn. 18 Stone head of a king, Dyn. 12 Stone statue of King Thutmose III, Dyn. 18 Tall bronze Osiris, Ptolemaic Period Unfinished stone statue, Dyn. 19 Wood statue of Amenemhat II, Dyn. 12 Wood statue of King Smenkhkare, Dyn. 18 This bronze statuette portrays a king, possibly King Shabaka of Dynasty 25, as Osiris. We see a king of imposing stature, with massive wrists and hands, a thick neck, high cheek bones, small ears, flattened nose and full lips--all fitting the body type of the Kushite (today’s Sudanese) kings of Dynasty 25. On close inspection, one can also see evidence that a second uraeus (cobra), a unique attribute of kings of that dynasty, was probably removed from the crown (probably at the same time as the king’s name was defaced from the pedestal). As noted elsewhere “… the Saite Dynasty which followed the Kushites did all it could to erase from the record any trace of these sovereigns who were ‘foreigners’ in the eyes of authentic Egyptians” (Institut du Monde Arabe. 1997:178, pl. 170).
The exquisite quality of craftsmanship is evident in the precision of the stone inlay work for the eyes and of the gold inlay work in Osiris’s beard. This is illustrative of the care lavished by Kushite pharaohs on the arts, as part of their drive to bring about a renaissance of the past grandeur of Egypt. They viewed their political, religious, and military intervention from Elephantine to the heart of Egypt as an act of salvation of a civilization on the verge of collapse.
The Borely Museum, in Marseille, France exhibited a very similar Osiris statuette, described as “Osiris # 176, bronze H: 39 cm. Inlaid gold eyes. Clot-Bey Collection, Maspero catalog # 399” (Musee Borely 1972:#176), which may have come from the same workshop, or even possibly the same artist.
Osiris One of Egypt’s principal gods, Osiris was thought to rule over Duat (the Egyptian underworld), and sit in judgement of the life and deeds of the deceased, determining their chances for eternal rest: he was the ‘king of the dead’.
Ions (1968:54) hypothesizes that the cult of Osiris was originally brought to Egypt by Syrians (probably in predynastic times) as they settled in the delta town of Busiris, where the god Andjety was the dominant local god. There, it appears that Osiris was given the royal regalia (crook and flail) of Andjety and was worshipped as a local god of fertility, responsible for the success of crops. From these humble beginnings, Osiris rose to become one of the most prominent gods in the Egyptian pantheon.
By the end of Dynasty 5, the cult of Osiris may have reached such a level of popularity that the priests of Heliopolis, who up to then enjoyed complete control over national theological doctrine, felt a need to take counter-measures to remain in control of this newcoming god. Instead of trying to suppress him, they incorporated Osiris in the family of the solar god, limiting his prestige by making him a great grand-child of Atum. If their aim had been to curb the expansion of the Osirian cult, they were less than successful. Orisis would keep growing in importance by associating with other deities, eventually absorbing their powers and prerogatives.
"… his earliest appearance yet attested [is] on a block from the reign of King Izezy [Djedkare Izezi, penultimate king of Dynasty 5] which shows the head and part of the upper torso of a god, above whom are the hieroglyphic symbols of Osiris’s name" (Hart 1986:151). But depictions of Osiris remain rare until Dynasty 12 (Budge 1973:[1]31).
In earlier dynasties, the traditional dogma was that the king became a god—the God Horus—upon his coronation, then joined the God Re in his solar ship upon his death, and sailed the firmament for eternity. The next king would in turn become Horus. At some point during dynasty 5, the dogma changed radically, calling for the deceased king to become Osiris upon his death. Not only had the cult of Osiris reached national recognition, but it had become part of the very nature of kingship. Although this relationship between king and Osiris was a new development, the Egyptians sought to make it appear original. Indeed, the legend of Osiris places him as the ancestral king of Egypt.
There is some evidence that Old Kingdom kings were not completely at ease with this new tradition. "… sentiments can be found that reveal an apprehension or dread of the ruler of the Underworld. This reflects the underlying desire of the monarch to be with the sun-god in the sky as a visible phenomenon, rather than to dwell in the unknown and forbidding regions of Duat" (Hart 1986:154).
With the general ‘democratization of death,’ Middle Kingdom Egyptians started aspiring to become Osiris, like their king. But as earlier with kings, this hope remained tainted with dread. Osiris exerted on Egyptians an ambivalent fascination, commanding a respect that was partly rooted in fear and even disgust—"… in the Middle Kingdom, there exist in the Coffin Texts descriptions of Osiris that conjure up a picture of a threatening demon. He glories in slaughter, utters malignant spells against a dead person, and runs a ‘mafia’ consisting of executioners called ‘Osiris’s butcherers painful of fingers’ or ‘Osiris’s fishermen’" (Hart 1986:155).
With the New Kingdom—when a generally less somber outlook prevailed—the image of Osiris may have softened. The euphemisms multiplied, and the term "Osiris" came of use as a prefix to the name of deceased dignitaries, much like the term ‘late’ in modern English (as in ‘the late President Nixon’). He continued to absorb the attributes of other deities, and remained an increasingly prominent object of devotion until the end of the Egyptian culture.
Osiris is customarily represented as a mummified human, his body shrouded in bandages, except for his hands which hold the royal insignias of the crook and flail. His distinctive crown, called the Atef consists of a tall conical helmet resembling the crown of Upper Egypt, flanked by two tall plumes. The long, horizontal wavy horns of a now extinct breed of ram, are sometimes affixed to the base of the crown.
The legend of Osiris evolved constantly over 2500 years, spinning off many variants. One of the most complete, most entertaining, but perhaps least accurate, single version is that told by the Greek historian Plutarch.
"… On the first day Osiris was born, as he was delivered, a voice cried out that the Lord of All was coming to the light of day… the great king and benefactor, Osiris, had been born… On the second day, Horus the Elder was born, and on the third Seth was born, not in the right time or place, but bursting through with a blow, he leapt by his mother’s side. On the fourth day Isis was born, near very moist places, and on the fifth Nephtys… Nephtys married Seth, and Isis and Osiris, being in love with each other before even they were born, were united in the darkness of the womb… Horus the elder was the fruit of this union…
It is said that Osiris, when he was king, at once freed the Egyptians from their primitive and brutish manner of life; he showed them how to grow crops, established laws for them, and taught them to worship gods. Later, he civilized the whole world as he traversed through it, having very little need of arms, but winning over most people by beguiling them with persuasive speech together with all manner of song and poetry. That is why the Greeks thought he was the same as Dionysus.
When he was away, Seth in no way conspired against him, since Isis was well on guard and kept careful watch, but on his return he devised a plot against him, helped by seventy two fellow-conspirators plus an Ethiopian queen named Aso. Seth secretly measured the body of Osiris and had made to the corresponding size a beautiful chest which was exquisitely decorated. He brought the chest to a banquet, and when the guests showed pleasure and admiration at the sight of it, Seth promised playfully that whomever would lie down in it and show that he fitted it, should have the chest as a gift. They all tried one by one, and since no one fitted into it, Osiris went and laid down. The the conspirators ran and slammed the lid on, and after securing it with bolts from the outside and with molten lead poured on, they took it to the river and let it go to the sea. . .
When Isis heard of this, she cut off there and then one of her locks and put on a mourning garment… She learned that the chest had been cast up by the sea in the land of Byblos and that the surf had brought it gently to rest in a heath-tree. Having shot up in a short time into a most lovely and tall young tree, the heath enfolded the chest and grew around it, hiding it within itself. Admiring the size of the tree, the king cut off the part of the trunk which encompassed the coffin, which was not visible, and used it as a pillar to support the roof. They say that Isis heard of this through the divine breath of rumour and came to Byblos, where she sat down near a fountain, dejected and tearful. She spoke to no one but the queen’s maids, whom she greeted and welcomed, plaiting their hair, and breathing upon their skin a wonderful fragrance which emanated from herself. When the queen saw her maids, she was struck with longing for the stranger’s hair and for her skin, which breathed ambrosia, and so Isis was sent for and became friendly with the queen and was made nurse of her child… Isis nursed the child, putting her finger in its mouth, instead of her breast, but in the night she burned the mortal parts of its body, while she herself became a swallow, flying around the pillar and making lament until the queen, who had been watching her, gave a shriek when she saw her child on fire, and so deprived it of immortality. The goddess then revealed herself and demanded the pillar under the roof. She took it from beneath with the utmost ease and proceeded to cut away the heath-tree. This she then covered with linen and poured sweet oil on it, after which she gave it into the keeping of the king and queen… The goddess then fell upon the coffin and gave such a loud wail that the younger of the king’s sons died; The elder son she took with her , and placing the coffin in a boat, she set sail…
As soon as she happened on a desert spot, there in solitude she opened the chest and pressing her face to that of Osiris, she embraced him and began to cry. She then noticed that the boy had approached silently from behind and had observed her, whereupon she turned round and full of anger gave him a terrible look. The boy was unable to bear the fright, and dropped dead…
Having journeyed to her son Horus who was being brought up in Buto, Isis put the box aside, and Seth, when he was hunting by night in the moonlight, came upon it. He recognized the body and having cut it into fourteen parts, he scattered them. When Isis heard of this, she searched for them in a papyrus boat, sailing through the marshes… this is why there are many tombs of Osiris in Egypt, for the goddess, as she came upon each part, held a burial ceremony… The only part that Isis did not find was his male member, for no sooner was it thrown in the river than the lepidus, phragus, and oxyrhynchus ate of it, fish they most of all abhor. In its place, Isis fashioned a likeness of it, and consecrated the phallus… Isis, having had sexual union with Osiris after his death, bore Harpocrates, prematurely delivered and weak in his lower limbs." (Plutarch, Of Isis and Orisis:12-20)
Dynasty 25 The kings of Dynasty 25 (747-656 BC) were not from Egypt, but from the land of Kush, south of Egypt (in today’s northern Sudan). Previously invaded, colonized, exploited, and forcefully ‘Egyptianized’ most recently during the New Kingdom, the Kushites had unexpectedly retained their Egyptianized ways in the five hundred years since the Egyptian state had pulled out of Kush. Their leader Piankhy (Piyi) still worshipped Egyptian gods, wrote official texts in classical hieroglyphs, and intended to be buried under a pyramid. Indeed, at a time when Lower Egypt was populated by a majority of ethnic Lybians who did not necessarily revere the Egyptian cultural heritage as their own, and when the strong pharaohs of the past had been replaced by a “federation of semi-autonomous rulers” (Shaw 2000:345), Piankhy felt more genuinely Egyptian than any king of Egypt. In fact, Kushite kings “did not see themselves as foreigners, although they had different ethnic, cultural and linguistic roots. In their view and faith, Kush and Egypt were the two halves of the ancient kingdom of Amun, which were once united in a distant mythical past” (Institut du Monde Arabe, Paris 1997:166, 170).
And so, when King Tefnakht of Sais in the Delta showed expansionist ambitions, Piankhy’s religious fervor led him to descend upon Egypt with his powerful army in a crusade to unite the nation under an ‘ideologically Egyptian’ king—himself. In southern Egypt, he diplomatically established his influence by convincing the Thebans to adopt his sister Amenirdis as the Divine Adoratrice of Amun—a position with considerable political power. In northern Egypt, his military supremacy brought compliance. But instead of annihilating the (mostly Lybian) kings, princes and chieftains of the Delta, he was satisfied with receiving their pledge of allegiance.
By the strength of their conviction and their deft and consistent application of symbolically charged gestures, Kushite kings awoke in their people a sense of national identity, gave a new impetus and a clear purpose to a land slowly drifting away into irrelevance. Although the idea of drawing strength from Egypt’s great past predates their intervention—“it had its origin in the later Lybian period, having begun during the first half of the eight century BC” (Shaw 2000:356)—the Kushites lent an energy, and a dedication to the cause that is almost palpable. Dynasty 25 high art blends the physical strength of Kushite body types with the classical model of Old Kingdom portraiture, adding a few details that demonstrate that Dynasty 25 Egypt was not just a relic of the past, but a nation moving forward, building confidently and proudly on its glorious heritage.
Although in artistic and cultural matters, the Kushite kings insisted on a return to Old Kingdom order, in politics they were unwilling to commit the resources necessary to return to an absolute centralized royal authority. But perpetuating the decentralized model of the previous hundred years meant they had to intervene sporadically to curtail the ambitions of their vassals. More importantly, the relative independence of local rulers in the delta eventually drew them to meddle in rebellions against the Assyrian dominance of Palestine. Provoking the Assyrian empire at the height of its power proved fatal to the Kushite Dynasty. In 667 BC, Assyria invaded Egypt and the Kushites pulled back to the land of Kush. Within three years, all hope was lost for Dynasty 25.
Bibliography (for this item) Institut du monde Arabe, Paris, , and Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, Munich 1997 SOUDAN. Royaumes sur le Nil (Exhibition in Munich, Paris, Amsterdam, Toulouse, Mannheim.). Flammarion, Paris. (166, 170 178, pl.170 200, pl.226)
Musée Borely, 1972 Hommage à Champollion: Le Nil et la société égyptienne. Musée Borely, Marseille, France. (# 176)
Roeder, Gunther 1956 Agyptische Bronzefiguren in Mitteilungen aus der Agytischen Sammlung. Staatliche Museen Zu Berlin.. Tafelband, Berlin, Germany.
Bibliography (on Osiris) Budge, E. A. Wallis, Sir 1973 Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (unabridged republication of the 1911 edition by the Medici Society). Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Hart, George 1986 A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, United Kingdom.
Ions, Veronica 1969 Mythologie Egyptienne (Translation of the 1968 edition by the Hamlyn Publishing Group). ODEGE, Paris, France.
Shaw, Ian 2000 The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Bibliography (on Dynasty 25) Institut du monde Arabe, Paris, , and Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, Munich 1997 SOUDAN. Royaumes sur le Nil (Exhibition in Munich, Paris, Amsterdam, Toulouse, Mannheim.). Flammarion, Paris.
Shaw, Ian 2000 The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. Desparate spammings, swearing, sweating...from Kenndo, but no data
Where's the data?
No data = case dismissed.
I'll leave you to your spamming then.....
I GUESS living proof is not enough for you,huh? I think you are agent. i gave you all the data you would ever need,living pictures of living people.african origin of civiliztion clearly states that the shilluk ,dinka etc,are one of the first of the east africans.who says i am swearing.i didn not swear in that last post.you like to make stuff up,and you know it.keep on,and on,and on and on.you just don't know how to quit.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I GUESS living proof is not enough for you,huh?
The living proof you provide is of the following order.
Living proof of,
- your own inability to produce the requested sources, studies and data
- your unfamiliarity with modern anthropology and attempts to substitute with 'flat nose science' which = your personal jibberish.
- your unwillness to learn anything that contradicts race mythologies that you have been brainwashed with.
- your resultant inability to make and intelligible argument.
You thus resort to flaming, spamming, swearing and other chidishness...anything you hope will destract from the vapid nature of your discourse, but that has never worked for you, which is why you are still angry.
Either that, your you simply don't know how to formulate a coherent thesis (???)
So you remain angry while floundering from one pointless post to the next..
quote:Kenndo writes: you just don't know how to quit.
translation:
- i expose the essentially laughable nature of your attempts at 'home-spun' flat nose science.
- i don't allow you to evade questions or distract from facts as denoted in the data provided - regardless of your flaming, spamming, swearing or other antics.
posted
Every thing you said was wrong by the way.anyway I NEVER did like you even when we use to agree with each other more so in the past.YOU are no friend of mine,with friends like you who needs enemies.
In fact you do not not have any proof your self.anybody could lie you could take something out of a book and distored it.you have no credibility.you been here so long that i have have to proof myself to you,no mister.
I HAVE READ THE SOME SOURCES,i just don't trust yours OR THE WAY YOU MENTION IT.The topic was kushites not THE FIRST east africans. I HAVE proven my point on that subject.gave you links and books just like you do .
let me get something clear you are not a scholar.we are here to talk about what we have read and that is that.that is far as i am going to go with you,because i have read the certain books and i am giving you my view on them.one point from a book i have.but i will give you no name or direct source.you just would have to learn to take somebodies word for it.
dr.leakey quote- for example,that from paleolithic to our day kenya,east africa and the upper nile have been inhabited by the same popultion which has remian anthropolically unchanged,with the masia as one of the most authentic representive types.
you have no data,no evidence and no credibilty.
I quote from books in the past GAVE NAMES and still you do not accepted ,I give links, show real pictures and you still say where is the proof.MOE GAME PLAYING. how childish.
I GIVE you just a taste and you still say where is the proof.IF I show more of it,all you will do is dismissed it.i see how you operate and i will not play more games with you.
you just waste of time.you are the little kid and you real troll on this forum.you are nobody,and not worth it. you are just a sad foolish person.
you are wrong or did not clearly get the info right from your books.
I CAME to clear up something,that man you kept showing ,his nose does not even look like the lady or even the statues.so which is it?you say the masia were among the first east africans has you say they had a narrow nose.well they do not.i show you pictures of that.
to make it clear a narrow nose person could still have a flat nose just like some of those pictures.it is still called a flat nose. the nose is still flat even if the bridge is not wide it is still a flat nose,but no you what to take it further and say that a western european nose is what the first east africans have.
look at the shilluk,the oromo and masai,most of them do not have those features and i just showed you some pics.if any of them have the narrow high bridge nose it is because of some form of mixture that came later accept it or not,that is your problem.
posted
If Kenndo were a true student of African history he would be able to comprehend the information below....
quote: Tutsi man.
Tutsi are African genetically:
The skeletons are of very tall people.
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.
All their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, such as Somali, Oromo, Tutsi, and Masai. - Jean Hiernaux.
Sadly, Kenndo refuses the opportunity to educate himself, perferring to wallow in the nonsense of a 'flat nose craniometry' that exists nowhere other than in simplistic wishful thinking.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Man with elaborate hairdo Shilluk, Sudan Photo: Bernatzik, first half 20th century
Photo from the book Hair in African Art and Culture, Sieber & Herreman, 2000, p. 16
The Shilluk are a major Nilotic ethnic group of southern Sudan, living on the west bank of the Nile around the city of Malakal. They are the third largest minority ethnic group of South Sudan, after the Dinka and their neighbors the Nuer.
posted
^ Good post Myra. The Shilluk, like the Tutsi, like the Somali were referrred to by some Eurocentrists as K-zoid or K-zoid/N-groid hybred, due to such features as longer narrower heads and nasal passages, lack of prognathous in the jaw, etc..
The reality is that these features were typical of many of the earliest East African remains.
You would think that would destroy Eurocentric speculations against these people, but racism is nothing if not doggedly determined in its denseness of mind and circularity of logic.
Thus the new K-zoid claim went:
"Yes, these people are native to East Africa. Therefore the original population of East AFrica was 'cacucasian' [Luis Leaky] and so.. 'non Africans [WW Howells].
The above is oxymoronic, similar to referring to the original populations of China or India as "African" and not Eurasian...only it's worse.
It is at least the case that all people do ultimately derive from Africans - though that is no excuse for the warped discourse of African Shang, African Dravidian, AFrican Eskimo, etc..
In the case of people like the Tutsi, there is no evidence that they EVER lived anywhere other than Africa or have significant ancestry from anyplace outside of Africa.
There is no proof that their features are specifically due to 'mixture'. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is soo funny how anthropologists and Egyptologists go out of their way to find evidence OUTSIDE of Africa for ancient Egyptian culture and IGNORE the evidence WITHIN Africa itself, that shows CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS ties to Egypt. Hairdos, clothing styles, cultural traits, language, arts and many other things tie Egypt to Africa, yet anthropologists go out of their way to ignore this data.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, i did not read any of your post except that first line and second line.The shilluk man you has narrow looking head,but nothing is narrow about his nasal passages.the shilluks are decribe today as negriod.it mentions nothing about them have narrow noses,or the dinka.some scholar called even the bantu non-negriod.
Are you going to say that these scholars said that because they see narrow noses in the bantu?I HOPE NOT BECAUSE anybody could see the bantu have flat noses,and the few that have western european type noses,or a mixture of some form.THAT shilluk man does not have a nose common with any european.
any so-call scholar that would say that IS a narrow nose is just wrong,and you just buy right into what they say.Put the books down,see for yourself and use YOUR JUDGEMENT.
IF a scholar said that the leader of north korea had kinky hair,would you try to explain away that too,or just say i do not see it.use your common sense.
you have a narrow nose obession,and you can't tell the difference from a narrow nose on a european that is straight and not flat from a narrow nose that is clearly flat.there are two types that i see and i do not need you or a scholar to tell me what i see.
flat noses could be broad or thin,that's the point.
The post is talking abou hair,not nose.DO NOT make stuff up.
a scholar-the man above has really thin lips and a really thin nose. listen,this is how you sound-some eurocentrics called that man a hybred because he has a narrow nose.
MY COMMENT-YOU FELL RIGHT in to the trap because you let them defined what you see,and anybody could see above that man has THICK LIPS,a flat nose,and it is broad i could add.
use your common sense. stop being pulled around the nose,so to speak.
Use your brain,see with your eyes.
SHILLUKS,EUROCENTRIC SCHOLAR COMMENT- the shuilluks below look like semi-black. your-comments,eurocentrics say they look half black below because,they have narrow heads and narrow noses. my comment-i DO NOT SEE this hybred mixture below in the first place,so why even bring it up.it's a false observation in the first place,second,unmixed blacks could have narrow head,because there are alot of them,third,the noses below do not even look narrow to me,so you got to question why the scholar brought up a false observation in the first place.question the scholar,do not make excuses up for incorrect science.
I think YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT,and IF YOU don't than again it will be your problem,because you mind is not open,and if you know i am speaking the truth,you will not admit you are wrong,to much bitterness has come up.to bad TO HAD TO HAPPEN.PEACE.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: rasol, i did not read any of your post except that first line and second line.
^ lol. And that's why you don't learn anything Kenndo.
It's also why you can't formulate a coherent response.
In turn, it's why you have no source evidence, no data, nothing in fact but frustrated ranting.
You pics are self defeating precisely because broad headed broad nosed prognathous-jaw skeletypes * are distinct * from the paleolithic rift valley remains.
You don't even understand the issue, much less can you address it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is soo funny how anthropologists and Egyptologists go out of their way to find evidence OUTSIDE of Africa for ancient Egyptian culture and IGNORE the evidence WITHIN Africa itself, that shows CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS ties to Egypt. Hairdos, clothing styles, cultural traits, language, arts and many other things tie Egypt to Africa, yet anthropologists go out of their way to ignore this data.
The strategy of Eurocentric ideology has always been to take Kemet itself out of Africa, so that it exists in a nether world, where the ws.t can then 'claim it'.
Nubia is necessary as a juxtaposition against this Egypt that is somewhere not in or of - Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: rasol, i did not read any of your post except that first line and second line.The shilluk man you has narrow looking head,but nothing is narrow about his nasal passages.the shilluks are decribe today as negriod.it mentions nothing about them have narrow noses,or the dinka.some scholar called even the bantu non-negriod.
Are you going to say that these scholars said that because they see narrow noses in the bantu?I HOPE NOT BECAUSE anybody could see the bantu have flat noses,and the few that have western european type noses are a mixture of some form.THAT shilluk man does not have a nose common with any european.
any so-call scholar that would say that IS a narrow nose is just wrong,and you just buy right into what they say.Put the books down,see for yourself and use YOUR JUDGEMENT.
IF a scholar said that the leader of north korea had kinky hair,would you try to explain away that too,or just say i do not see it.use your common sense.
you have a narrow nose obession,and you can't tell the difference from a narrow nose on a european that is straight and not flat from a narrow nose that is clearly flat.there are two types that i see and i do not need you or a scholar to tell me what i see.
flat noses could be broad or thin,that's the point,i hope you are not blind.
The post is talking about hair,not nose.DO NOT make stuff up.
a scholar-the man above has really thin lips and a really thin nose. listen,this is how you sound-some eurocentrics called that man a hybred because he has a narrow nose.
MY COMMENT-YOU FELL RIGHT in to the trap because you let them defined what you see,and anybody could see above that man has THICK LIPS,a flat nose,and it is broad i could add.
use your common sense. stop being pulled around the nose,so to speak.
Use your brain,see with your eyes.
SHILLUKS,EUROCENTRIC SCHOLAR COMMENT- the shuilluks below look like semi-black. your-comments,eurocentrics say they look half black below because,they have narrow heads and narrow noses. my comment-i DO NOT SEE this hybred mixture below in the first place,so why even bring it up.it's a false observation in the first place,second,unmixed blacks could have narrow head,because there are alot of them,third,the noses below do not even look narrow to me,so you got to question why the scholar brought up a false observation in the first place,AND LAST these shilluks below do not have narrow heads.question the scholar,do not make excuses up for incorrect science.
I think YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT,and IF YOU don't than again it will be your problem,because you mind is not open,and if you know i am speaking the truth,you will not admit you are wrong,to much bitterness has come up.to bad TO HAD TO HAPPEN.PEACE ,I AM OUT.
quote: Your pics are self defeating precisely because broad headed, broad nosed prognathous-jaw skeletypes * are distinct * from the paleolithic rift valley remains in question. You don't even understand the issue, much less can you address it. But then, that's what you get for refusing to read.
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa had narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. - The People of Africa, Jean Hiernaux.
More reading, less spamming is what will help Kenndo.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
RASOL/QUOTE-You don't trust Dr. Keita, and Jean Hiernaux? You don't trust Kent Weeks and Phil Rightmire?
Really?
Have you actually read them?
Any of them?
No you haven't.
case dismissed.
--------------------------------------------- I READ SOME OF KEITA,ALMOST GOT HIM ON THE PHONE,but spoke to somone who knows him well and his views. kent weeks,i have read some of is essays on egypt,but it has been awhile.he is a egyptolgist,so why you even bring him up?you do not not trust egyptology remember?they just want to give blacks nubia and not egypt in your words,not mine. -------------------------------------------------- now back to your post above.
MEDIUM WIDTH DOES NOT sound to me like a thin high bridge looking nose THAT LOOKS like a western european nose,and they are talking about average,not all.every remain has not been found by the way.only a small sample.
IF some of these folks,like some oromo or or some masai have noses that look like western europeans however,it is because of some form of outside mixture,and it does not have to be that large of admixture either but important.IF I REMEMBER correctly dna test or test was perform on alot of the fula and manytry to explain away why many had certain features like the nose for example.it was found out that they mix earlier with certain types of berbers if you know what i mean.I THINK THIS TEST WAS used on certain east african groups as well.that is why many horn of african populations have the narrow high bridge nose that we say all white have.these groups are still black however,except the certain arabs and other that came to the east african coast over the years.
A LARGER BETTER SAMPLE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN to make a really good judgment.you could find a few remains from eastern europe and say,wow look at all these whites with short skulls. HEY,IT WOULD SEEM that way if these were the only remains you found and if you found more would you say it if you had a agenda?no,i will go kept on distorting to make a point. halle berry has a medium width nose or small nose,but is it still flat from the pictures i seen of her from the early 1900's.she did not even pass for white in that movie called queen,i with all that makup on her,only the blind would say is was passing for white but that is another topic.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
THE masia are the same folks that lived from the paleolithic to our day in kenya.they do not change over night.
masia have varied features,but these so called remains of the past,are not really what these scholar are calming,if you could see the proof .
IF the leader of north korea skull was measured 10,000 years from now,some body could take false measurments and say he had white features.
but i would say wait i have a picture of him right here.here is the proof,or you could see it in his descendants. question the method,rasol,don't take anybodies word for it.
question-are there more remains, that show more varied features?have they found them?do they have them?are they only showing and telling only about these remains,just like they like to show only remains of white egyptians.
Are the measurements really correct and if they are,so what if they had a narrow skulls you could see that type of shull shape in all regions of africa,but it is clear they did not have european type noses,because you can't see it in the shilluks or masia today AND THEY ARE AMONG the first east africans,they come from those remains .
IF A MASIA DIED today AND A SCHOLAR WAS to take a measurement 200 years from now,they could say to that this masia a european type features,but the nasal passage is narrow and the lips and skull are narrow and thin.
I would say wait,the nasal passages is not narrow,it is just abit more narrower,that does not make it still a european type nose,since we know noses come in different sizes and shapes even if they are flat,but maybe this could be a nose type is more common in this group than others,but it does not mean it looks european.it is just on average a smaller type of flat nose.
but certain scholar want to get carry away and say -well it does not like like a kushite or bantu nose,since we know the broad flat nose is common for those groups,so we will not admit it is just a smaller version on average of a flat nose,we would take it further and say it is like a european nose,and you is going to stop us if we say it after all we are scholars and if we say the first native american was white,than we could get away with that too(that was false of course)
YOU have to go to other sources and don't believe everything you read. IF the living proof is in front of you or there living descendant from these paleolithic east africans or first east africans ,you don't need bones to tell you what you see today.,and you could see the varied skull types toady not just narrow heads,so the same varied skulls must have been it the the past.
That point is clear enough.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like Kenndo is unwittingly caught up and mired by Eurocentric thought.
So according to Kenndo's claims, a pure indigenous African must have "flat" nostril tips; if not, they must have "admixture".
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Egyptian (North African)
Tutsi (Central African)
If only Kenndo could realize he has become a puppet of the k-zoid craze Eurocentrists.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It looks like Kenndo is unwittingly caught up and mired by Eurocentric thought.
Yep. That's why I limit my direct responses to him, because there are certain things he can't understand.
What is *crucially important* for others to understand is that because some of the earliest African fossils resemble the one's you posted - and did NOT resemble the one's Kenndo posted - early anthropologist tried claiming the original african population were k'zoid.
In order to logically and intelligently debunk this false claim - and expose it as oxymoronic, it is necessary to show that these peoples have ALWAYS LIVED IN AFRICA.
This is what brilliant scholars like Keita and Hiernaux have done.
"In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African.'" - (S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134)
Unfortunately it all flies right over Kenndo's head.
Kenndo's also a little dishonest when he needs to be
- he first asserted that only broad noses were authentically african,
- when presented with hard data to the contrary, then switched his argument to nonsense about 'flat noses'.
This is because the particular shape of the tip of a nose is merely soft flesh, not boney tissue which can be measured metrically in paleolithic remains, IE - broad vs. narrow.
He simply switched from verifiable relevant facts, which debunk him - to something both unverifiable and utterly irrelevant. So at some level, he must know he is in error.
He then posts *current* pictures of Africans with broad nasal passages, and or round heads and or prognathism - but his photos are all irrelevant because they *do not match the skeletypes* denoted in the fossil record.
The entire k-zoid east africa argument is based precisely on matching up the skeletypes in Kenndo's pictures with paleolithic rift valley Africans and noting how different they are.
Kenndo plays right into this Eurocentric myth, by claiming people who look 'like that' are not natively African - just as does with his "Nubian" mythmaking, by attempting to fabricate a Black African nation and race called Nubians - disctinct from "Egyptians"
Some things are just too hard for some folks to understand.
I'm sorry I don't know how to put it in more polite terms. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Right. You would think that only white people like MichaelfromQuebec buys into the whole phony mixed-race East African thing, but as evidenced by Kenndo apparently blacks, even Africans have fallen for the ruse.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It looks like Kenndo is unwittingly caught up and mired by Eurocentric thought.
So according to Kenndo's claims, a pure indigenous African must have "flat" nostril tips; if not, they must have "admixture".
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Egyptian (North African)
Tutsi (Central African)
If only Kenndo could realize he has become a puppet of the k-zoid craze Eurocentrists.
those first pictures show africans with nostrils that are not pointing,they do not have the european nose.nose noses above still like african.now they have some form of admixture or not.if they are fula,most likely they would be admixture.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Must be a foreigner who came there recently based on this whole north Africans aint like other Africans concept.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
of soft tissue. 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic