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 ]
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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: Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Ausar Kem-wer [literally--Osiris, the great Black!]
^ The original Black King of the Nile.
Posted by Hikuptah (Member # 11131) on :
Just look at Ausar Every King of Egypt was a BlackMan
Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on :
and Ahmose I, founder of the 18th Dynasty
Posted by Lazar (Member # 10869) on :
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:
True.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Ey Myra,
Thanks for the science! This is great, truth shall continually unveil itself, know what I mean? Salaam
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: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
Only cynicism is required on Bonnet's part.
What's even more mind blowing is when sincere African scholars daftly repeat after the nonsenses handed to them.
Our responsibility is actually to 'dissect and deconstruct' - as you have just done. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
taharqa
taharqa/kushite menes/egyptian Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
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. [/qb]
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ 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
....goes unanswered.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:i will AGREE WITH YOU RASOL on this point,that the masai have thinner noses on average
What you agree or disagree with is of no consequence.
All that matters is the evidence you can produce.
If you make statements on anthroplogy you must be able to back them up with anthropological evidence.
You stall and distract as usual, but present no evidence that will contradict Rightmire, Hiernaux, Keita or Brace.
Case dismissed.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
wait just a damn min.you are so hostile.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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 Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ No, they don't, and you know it, which is why you argue out of WISHFUL THINKING while producing no evidence for anything.
Fallacy - ad nauseum - to repeat false claims while failing to produce requested evidence.
translation: Kenndo has no sources, no studies, no data and no answers, as usual, and so can only babble on in mounting frustration.
case dismissed.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:you are sick and need help.
^ 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.
Where is Kenndo's data?
You don't have any data but only MINDLESS SPAM.
Case dismissed.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
wrong. they look more like this,with flat noses,with a broad or thin bridge.now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ 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..... Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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 ŕ 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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
true that.
You can hate me now. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
bye.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I HAVE READ THE SOME SOURCES
lol. In fact you nooooo sources of relevance, no studies or scholars whom you can cite. You have nothing.
quote:i just don't trust yours
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on :
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.
^ 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'. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Very true Doug, very true.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
case dismissed.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
last point.
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Lol!
So this man is not Egyptian:
Must be a foreigner who came there recently based on this whole north Africans aint like other Africans concept.....
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
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.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
BY THE WAY,nubia was called a nation by the 3 cen. b.c. and more so after,so that is not a myth.
NUBIANS are a ethnic group today.go toe sudan and egypt,they will tell you today they were called nubians by the late ancient and medieval time. now back to the topic.
that picture of the first egyptian,that egyptian is mixed.the later picture of the egyptian,it is hard to say,can't see the face.the other picture of those blacksmen do not have a narrow nostrils.look carefully at the at the first picture.the nostrils are stretch out.whites don't have a nose like that. i could see that so carefully.the others have nostrils that are not like europeans either except the egyptian man there.that man looks clearly mixed,but he is not white. MOST EGYPTAIN TODAY ARE MIXED or have some forum of mixture,but some or few are not.most egyptian today are not black,they don't look black and they will tell you they are not black.THE PAST WAS DIFFERENT.MOST WERE BLACK BACK THEN.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Could you please define for us, "Western European nose" and "medium width" nose??
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
ok. hold on.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
narrow pointing noses/white looking noses.how i see it and others.
this nose is like the ones above,not like the ones below.this is a narrow nose. ----------------------------------------------
now below medium width flat nose/various types-does not look like the noses above.these are still african looking noses.
the two pics below,the nose bone is not as wide or that narrow,but still a flat nose.
nose is bone is not really not narrow and the nostrils do not look like the white chick above.it still stretch out.flat.
that is all folks. peace.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The somali gentleman listed above has features like many of Akhenatens statues, but his nose is bigger than those on akhenaten's statues. However, there are many Africans in East Africa and Sudan with small noses often seen depicted in the families of the late Amarna period (like Tiye's), which is NOT a sign of mixture with ANYONE. The problem is that anthropologists are SUPPOSED to make photos of all the variations of features found in an area, in order to do comparative studies of LIVING features, in addition to the more common practice of tissue and fluid samples. This method of photographing LIVING people from a WIDE range of populations, especially in those places conquered and occupied by Europeans, was very popular in the late 19th and much of the 20th century. However, this method is falling from favor and being replaced with abstract numeric measurements based on tissue and fluid samples of living persons as well as craniofacial measurements. (Mainly because such photos reveal the lies of Europeans, especially in Egypt and East Africa). While these types of tests may be more SCIENTIFICALLY accurate, they do NOT convey the actual diversity of populations, especially LIVING populations, as good as photos do. While we may hunt and peck on the net for photos of various Africans, we are only doing a poor job of anthropology. If one was to undertake a serious attempt at photographing the various populations in and around the world and East Africa/Egypt in particular, you would find that narrow noses are NOT rare and many times these features are quite common to UNMIXED African populations, even those OUTSIDE of East Africa.
Let us remember the original point and not get sidetracked. The issue is about the TRUE diversity of Africa encompassing many features and types, many of which are considered "FOREIGN" to Africa, when they are not. Likewise, it is about the blatant lies and distortion that try and depict Egyptians as NOT also sharing the features of broad noses and large lips found ELSEWHERE in Africa, even while also having features of narrow noses and lips found ELSEWHERE in Africa.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ correct and well said Doug. the idea that narrow noses = white, is just silly-minded racism, not worthy of refutation even, at least amongst educated people.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^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.
This is because there is a kind of so-called 'Afrocentrism' which is simply a mirror image of Eurocentrism.
They are two essentially unintelligent discourses that bounce the same banalities off of one another - only in reverse.
They are themselves often ineducable, [what else can you say about someone who thinks the Central African Watusi man has a 'white' nose, but that African-American Halle Berry whose own mother, and likely the majority of her ancestors actually *are white*....does not]
Sometimes ones has to laugh at fools, and at the same time..... *use them* to educate others. Posted by Hikuptah (Member # 11131) on :
Kennedo i wish i could take u with me to Egypt we will go from Alexandria all the way South to Aswan my home town and i will show u Arabs with broad noses like Central & West Africans and u will see darkskinned southern Egyptians with straight noses like Ronald reagan. Most East Africans including Tutsi Ethiopians Oromos Somalis afar all have straight noses but this is not from admixture this is just a African thing. I even have a straight nose and straight but curly hair i am a African 100%.
Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on :
The earliest evidence of Nubians living in Egypt comes during the Old Kingdom. Throughout the Middle Kingdom, the pharaonic frontier lay on the Second Cataract (in present-day Sudan); during this period, movements northwards from Nubia are especially likely. Together with the known presence of Nubian mercenaries in Gebelein (Fischer, 1961), the Middle Kingdom sample may represent a Nubian rather than Egyptian population.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that EGYPTIANS had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).
The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello andDean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^^ placehoder.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
kenndo, you are a fool. And to think you call yourself African.
Tell me, are the following noses "white" or "African" or "mixed" in your mind?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Depending on how “Nubia” is conceptualized, the early kingdom seems to have more or less became absorbed politically into Egypt.
Taking a long and synthetic view, one compelling scenario is as follows: after the early late pleistocene/holocene establishment of Afroasiatic- speaking populations in the Nile valley and Sahara, who can be inferred to have been predominantly, but not only V (and XI), and of Nilosaharan folk in Nubia, Sudan, and Sahara (mainly XI and IV?), midholocene climatic-driven migrations led to a major settlement of the valley in upper Egypt and Nubia, but less so in lower Egypt, by diverse Saharans having haplotypes IV, XI, and V in proportions that would significantly influence the Nile valley-dwelling populations. These mid-Holocene Saharans are postulated to have been part of a process that led to a diverse but connected metapopulation. These peoples fused with the indigenous valley peoples, as did Near Easterners with VII and VIII, but perhaps also some V. With population growth the genetic profiles would became stabilized. Nubian and upper Egyptian proximity and on some level, shared culture, Nubia’s possible participation in Egyptian state-building, and later partial political absorption in Dynasty 238 S.O.Y. Keita and A. J. Boyce I, would have reinforced biological overlap (and been further “stabilized” by ongoing population growth). In this model much later migrations would have not created the genetic profile, only helped to maintain it.- GENETICS, EGYPT, AND HISTORY: INTERPRETING GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS OF Y CHROMOSOME VARIATION1 S.O.Y. KEITANATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER, HOWARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.pdf Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Kenndo Says:
quote:
this nose is like the ones above,not like the ones below.this is a narrow nose
So does this mean that the African above, has a "western European" nose?
Recalling on...
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the **highest** and the **one with the lowest nose**, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
I'm hopeful the point will be taken home. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom: kenndo, you are a fool. And to think you call yourself African.
Tell me, are the following noses "white" or "African" or "mixed" in your mind?
I LOVE it when to the new guy comes out of nowhere and calls you name.what a world.
you are the fool. this ex ethiopian leader is admixture of arab white blood.this is how i see it and read about. by the way is nose is white looking yes i believe it.now could blacks have this type of nose without mixture.only in europe at one point.that how white came into existence,but any other place i would say mixture.
now for the black man,hmmm,let me see,he looks to have a flat nose,but i can see the nostrils if they are sticking straight toward me.he needs to have his head looking up,not down.i am a expert after all,and i need to see a different angle. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Depending on how “Nubia” is conceptualized, the early kingdom seems to have more or less became absorbed politically into Egypt.
Taking a long and synthetic view, one compelling scenario is as follows: after the early late pleistocene/holocene establishment of Afroasiatic- speaking populations in the Nile valley and Sahara, who can be inferred to have been predominantly, but not only V (and XI), and of Nilosaharan folk in Nubia, Sudan, and Sahara (mainly XI and IV?), midholocene climatic-driven migrations led to a major settlement of the valley in upper Egypt and Nubia, but less so in lower Egypt, by diverse Saharans having haplotypes IV, XI, and V in proportions that would significantly influence the Nile valley-dwelling populations. These mid-Holocene Saharans are postulated to have been part of a process that led to a diverse but connected metapopulation. These peoples fused with the indigenous valley peoples, as did Near Easterners with VII and VIII, but perhaps also some V. With population growth the genetic profiles would became stabilized. Nubian and upper Egyptian proximity and on some level, shared culture, Nubia’s possible participation in Egyptian state-building, and later partial political absorption in Dynasty 238 S.O.Y. Keita and A. J. Boyce I, would have reinforced biological overlap (and been further “stabilized” by ongoing population growth). In this model much later migrations would have not created the genetic profile, only helped to maintain it.- GENETICS, EGYPT, AND HISTORY: INTERPRETING GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS OF Y CHROMOSOME VARIATION1 S.O.Y. KEITANATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER, HOWARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.pdf
yes,yes we all know that lower nubia became apart of egypt many times.we all know that the first populations in egypt came from the south,and west,than east,and than north.
nubia first populations like ausar and i said came from the central and southern sahara. we all know this,no need to open up a can of worms again.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by Yom: kenndo, you are a fool. And to think you call yourself African.
Tell me, are the following noses "white" or "African" or "mixed" in your mind?
I LOVE it when to the new guy comes out of nowhere and calls you name.what a world.
you are the fool. this ex ethiopian leader is a black man that is a admixture of arab blood.This is how i see it and I HAVE read about over the years. by the way is nose is white looking yes i believe it.now could blacks have this type of nose without mixture.only in europe at one point.that how white came into existence,but any other place i would say mixture.
now for the black man,hmmm,let me see,he looks to have a flat nose,but i can see the nostrils if they are sticking straight toward me.he needs to have his head looking up,not down.i am a expert after all,and i need to see a different angle.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Kennedo i wish i could take u with me to Egypt we will go from Alexandria all the way South to Aswan my home town and i will show u Arabs with broad noses like Central & West Africans and u will see darkskinned southern Egyptians with straight noses like Ronald reagan. Most East Africans including Tutsi Ethiopians Oromos Somalis afar all have straight noses but this is not from admixture this is just a African thing. I even have a straight nose and straight but curly hair i am a African 100%.
most east africans do not have straight noses.not the ones i see.most east africans live in kenya,sudan and tanzania and mosty there do not have staright noses.that is a lie told by racist. even in each horm of african state,there are large numbers of blacks with flat noses.the oromo pictures i showed earlier are example of this,so let us not get carried away here.please.
I know you are trying to make a point.the horn of africa and the coast in the sudan did have outsiders that did settled there.There was a major impact over the years there.NOT everyone has mixed in the horn of africa,but there is a admixture in large part of the population.you see less so in southern ethiopia.
hey what could i say.this is what i read over the years,even in recent books.
If some form of LATER admixture happen,it happen. ALOT of eastern europeans had admixture from asians,and while they are not happey about it,some do not deny it either.
tell you what,this is for anybody here.I WILL stir up the the bees nest one more time since i do have a knack for it time to time.
let's be honest,seriously.did any science person did genetic tests on large numbers of people from the horn of africa,and i mean states like ethiopia,somalia,eritrea and djibouti. and did any said there was a certain amount of admixture.
this is the real meat of the issue,because i could have sworn i read this somewhere that admixture was found in large parts of the horn of africa.
so forget everything else i said for the days,let's deal with this issue.
example,did anyone take a gene test on haile selassie and found any outside admixture. tell me the truth.
if these test were taken and they were found to have no outside influence,i will shut up and not bring this issue up again,because i think it is healthy this get this part out of the way.
don't lie to me and the public please. I KNOW a few new york univ. african scholars that that have keita phone number and i have some numbers too and i will reach colombia univ. african studies.
If they tell me something different that is posted on this board.I will say so the next time,and only once because after that no more debates.
SO GIVE me the answer,and i will get the answer from these scholars soon and we could all compare notes.
I WILL TELL you what these scholars and anthropologist say vs what is said on this forum,deal?deal.
I WILL give it a rest for now. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Kenndo Says:
quote:
this nose is like the ones above,not like the ones below.this is a narrow nose
So does this mean that the African above, has a "western European" nose?
Recalling on...
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the **highest** and the **one with the lowest nose**, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
I'm hopeful the point will be taken home.
^ It's always worth teaching those who can learn. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Most of halle berry ancestors are not white.The black gene is the strongest by the way,RASOL AND YOU are the fool.
Most east africans do not have straight noses.not the ones i see.most east africans live in kenya,sudan and tanzania and mosty there do not have staright noses.
That is a lie told by racist. Even in each horn of african state,there are large numbers of blacks with flat noses.
The oromo pictures i showed earlier are example of this,so let us not get carried away here.please.
I know you are trying to make a point.The horn of africa and the coast in the sudan did have outsiders that did settled there OVER THE YEARS.
There was a major impact over the years there.NOT everyone has mixed in the horn of africa,but there is a admixture in large part of the population.IT IS less so in southern ethiopia.
Hey what could i say.This is what i read over the years,even in recent books.
If some form of LATER admixture happen,it happen. ALOT of eastern europeans had admixture from asians,and while they are not happy about it,some do not deny it either.
Tell you what,this is for anybody here.I WILL stir up the the bees nest one more time since i do have a knack for it time to time.
let's be honest,seriously AND NO NAME CALLING .Did any scientist did genetic tests on large numbers of people from the horn of africa and the tutsi,and i mean states like ethiopia,somalia,eritrea and djibouti. and did any said there was a certain amount of admixture.
This SHOULD BE THE real meat of the issue,because i could have sworn i read this somewhere that admixture was found in large parts of the horn of africa.
So forget everything else i said OVER THE days,let's deal with this issue.
Example,did anyone take a gene test on haile selassie and found any outside admixture. tell me the truth.
If these test were taken and they were found to have no outside influence,i will shut up and not bring this issue up again,because i think it is healthy this get this part out of the way SINCE this is not news and most folks do not know the real deal here.let's be honest too,most folks on the planet who read books about africa do read that there was later admixture in the horm of africa for large parts of the population,so i will admit i am torn about this.I HAVE READ SOURCES abouth this not long ago,but when i come here other names of books are giving to me and we all know scholars could have there agenda too,so i do not trust everything that is said on the internet.I REMEMBER when i first started using the internet,my friends said beware,there will be ideas so different from yours and what you learn you will think you are in the twight zone.
I STILL CAN'T believe when i was on brazzil.com i had a debate if halle berry was white or black.
THIS is what i get i suppose when i join these type of forums.
NOW don't lie to me and the public please. I KNOW a few new york univ. african scholars that that have keita's phone number and i have some numbers too and i will reach colombia univ. african studies.
If they tell me something different that is posted on this board.I will say so the next time,and only once because after that no more debates.
SO GIVE me the answer,and i will get the answer from these scholars soon and we could all compare notes.
I WILL TELL you what these scholars and anthropologist say vs what is said on this forum,deal?deal.
I WILL give it a rest for now.
HEY i can't edited .sorry i could not edit for the above.I CLICK the edit link but it is not working.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Kenndo Says:
quote:
this nose is like the ones above,not like the ones below.this is a narrow nose
So does this mean that the African above, has a "western European" nose?
Recalling on...
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the **highest** and the **one with the lowest nose**, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
I'm hopeful the point will be taken home.
^ It's always worth teaching those who can learn.
rasol.in that book,please does it mentions any test were taken,you know like gene test to find out any admixture in many of the horn of african populations,that is what i really waht to find out.To be honest i have not got the book yet.
ANOTHER THING,many of the masia i have seen do not have the straight narrow noses but you say the masia have the features like the tusi and somali and the earlier paleolithic populations of east africa,but for the masia like i said i don't see it and the pictures i posted.does this mean that the masia were not from these paleolithic poplutations,or they are a result of other african types from over the years and that is why we see the masia in the pictures i posted with flat noses.
JUST asking the question now,because maybe i have been brainwashed,after all i do live in america.
so please,could you answer that question,or anybody else,since this really seems to be something that folks get upset about when i bring it up.you answer could be given for the general public too.
answer me,like i just came to this forum for the first time.could you do that or anyone?thank you.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Kenndo Says:
quote:
this nose is like the ones above,not like the ones below.this is a narrow nose
So does this mean that the African above, has a "western European" nose?
Recalling on...
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the **highest** and the **one with the lowest nose**, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
I'm hopeful the point will be taken home.
^ It's always worth teaching those who can learn.
rasol.in that book,please does it mentions any test were taken,you know like gene test to find out any admixture in many of the horn of african populations,that is what i really what to find out.To be honest i have not got the book yet.
ANOTHER THING,many of the masia i have seen do not have the straight narrow noses but you say the masia have the features like the tusi and somali and the earlier paleolithic populations of east africa,but for the masia like i said i don't see it and the pictures i posted.does this mean that the masia were not from these paleolithic poplutations,or they are a result of other african types from over the years and that is why we see the masia in the pictures i posted with flat noses.many of shilluks and the dinka as well that i have seen have flat noses,and are said to have those features,so they must not have come from these paleolithic early east african populations too and must have come later like the masia.THE SOMALI,OROMO MUST HAVE come earlier than the shilluk and the dinka.even many of the oromo i see do not have the narrow features.
JUST asking the question now,because maybe i have been brainwashed,after all i do live in america.
So please,could you answer that question,or anybody else,since this really seems to be something that folks get upset about when i bring it up.you answer could be given for the general public too.
answer me,like i just came to this forum for the first time.could you do that or anyone?thank you.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
HERE IS SOMETHING I FOUND/IT SHOULD ANSWER THE SOME QUESTION.THIS IS IT FOR NOW.
QUOTE- The human skeletons discovered by Leakey near Elmenteita (Kenya) in the grotto called Gamble's Cave II, and which probably belonged to the same human type as the Olduvai man (northern Tanzania) of the Capsian, have caused much ink to flow. "It is certain that these are not true Negroes, in the usual sense of the word. These are men comparable to the Nilotics in the Great Lakes region, or else comparable to the lighter-skinned populations of those territories. A skeleton recently found at Naivasha (Kenya) obviously belongs to the same type."14 From these discoveries, prehistorians, historians, and ethnologists draw conclusions of varying importance concerning the early peopling of Black Africa. In the Olduvai man, Cornevin sees the ancestor of the Nilotic, of the Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, and Masai. He makes him a Caucasoid. His existence, Cornevin contends, "proves that it is useless to make the East African, improperly called Nilo-Hamitic, come from India or Arabia."1" Finally, referring to the Naivasha man just mentioned, on the next page he writes that archeological research reveals affinities with the Cro-Magnon race: "tall stature, low, wide face, broad forehead, rectangular sockets, thin nose, little prognathism." There was no Cro-Magnon man in sub-Saharan Africa. At an interview that Professor Vallois was kind enough to grant me at the Paris Institute of Human Paleontology, this scientist was categorical 47. Three Skulls: Lower Cro-Magnon; Middle Gri-maldi; Top Modern Sudanese (Mali). Compare Middle with Lower and Top, especially for any resemblance to Lower or difference from Top. 48. The Hottentot Venus. Left, a steatopygic Aurig-nacian statuette; right, the Hottentot Venus mold (cf. Boule and Vallois, Fossil Men). 49. Leakey's Crushed Aurignacian Skull from Gamble's Cave II. 50. Sahara Cave Painting of a Negro Woman. (From J. D. Lajoux, Les Merveilles du Tassili n'Ajjer. Paris: Editions du Chene.) Evolution of the Black World 273 about this. Only the Boskop man (Transvaal Province, South Africa) was, for a time, considered as a Cro-Magnoid having affinities with the Bushman. But this opinion was later abandoned by its partisans. Cornevin, unfortunately, continues to confuse Grimaldi man-a "Negroid" with marked prognathism and broad nose-with Cro-Magnon man, who is not at all prognathous but presents in hypertrophic fashion typical European traits: thin lips, prominent chin, narrow nose. There is reason to reexamine the documents. (Cf. fig. 47.) The theory that makes Causcasoids of the Dinka, Nuer, Masai;etc., is the most unwarranted. Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognizing only blond Scandinavians as Whites and systematically refused all other Europeans-especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese-membership in the White race. Just as Scandinavians and Mediterraneans must be considered as the two poles, the two extremes of the same anthropological reality, it would be only fair to do the same for the two extremes of the reality of the Black world: Negroes of East Africa and those of West Africa.
To, call a Shilluk, a Dinka, or a Masai a Caucasoid is as devoid of sense and scientific validity for an African as it would be for a European to claim that a Greek or a Latin are not White. The desperate search for a non-Negro solution sometimes leads to talk about "a primitive stock that might not yet have assumed a differentiated Black or White character," or to whitening Negroes such as the Masai. All the human types found in Kenya from the Paleolithic to the end of the Neolithic, are perfectly distinguishable as Negroes. Dr. Leakey,* who has studied nearly all of them, knows this. He knows that all the skeletons that have fallen into his hands have Ne-gritic proportions in the full sense of the word. He also is aware that the obervation by Boule and Vallois on the "floor of the nasal fossae" is applicable to all the skulls that he has studied. One can understand why anthropologists are silent on these determining points. On the contrary, they readily expand on cranial measurements, for in this domain, except in extreme cases, it is harder to distinguish a Negro from a White. They admit, for example, that from the Paleolithic to our day Kenya, East Africa, and the Upper Nile have been inhabited by the same population which has remained anthropologically unchanged, with the Masai as one of the most authentic representative types.16 * This was written some time before the death of Louis S. B. Leakey in 1972. To the anthropologists, he is the very type of the undifferentiated Negro. Whenever they discuss the late appearance of the "true Negro," we must remember that this is because they do not consider him as such, for he has been there since the beginning of time, since the Paleolithic. All the skull specimens considered non-Negroid, following the measurements of Leakey and other anthropologists, are really those of his archeological forebears from whom he does not differ morphologically. Dr. Leakey and all the anthropologists will confirm this. If he were not a living reality, his skull would have come out whitened or, in any case, "denegrified" by their measurements, with an orthognathous face held high, a thin nose, high forehead, etc. Even alive, he is not a Negro in the view of the so-called specialists, but the authentic type of the Nilo-Hamite. I invite the reader to verify this. He will simply find these facts confirmed.17 Anthropologists have invented the ingenious, convenient, fictional notion of the "true Negro," which allows them to consider, if need be, all the real Negroes on earth as fake Negroes, more or less approaching a kind of Platonic archetype, without ever attaining it. Thus, African history is full of "Negroids," Hamites, semi-Hamites, Nilo-Hamitics, Ethiopoids, Sabaeans, even Caucasoids! Yet, if one stuck strictly to scientific data and archeological facts, the prototype of the White race would be sought in vain throughout the earliest years of present-day humanity. The Negro has been there from the beginning; for millennia he was the only one in existence. Nevertheless, on the threshold of the historical epoch, the "scholar" turns his back on him, raises questions about his genesis, and even speculates "objectively" about his tardy appearance: "It is quite possible that the Negro type, 'the true Negro' of the anthropologists, who now inhabits West and Equatorial West Africa, has existed since 10,000 B.C. Unfortunately, the conditions of the tropical soil do not readily permit the fossiliza-tion of bones and it is hardly probable that interesting finds will be made. For a long time to come this will leave the field open for any and all hypotheses concerning the populations of those regions." (Cornevin, op. cit., p. 81.) On carefully rereading Baumann and Westermann's Les Peuples et les civilisations de I'Afrique, the only ethnological synthesis on Black Africa, Mr. Cornevin will realize that he is mistaken and that Central and West Africa are inhabited almost exclusively by Eastern Hamites, if we are to accept the conclusions presented in that volume. Evolution of the Black World 275 The difference in the intellectual approach of the African and European researcher often causes these misunderstandings in the interpretation of facts and their relative importance. The scientific interest of the European scholar with regard to African data is essentially analytical. Seeing things from the outside, often reluctant to synthesize, the European clings basically to explosive, more or less biased micro-analysis of the facts and constantly postpones ad infinitum the stage of synthesis. The African scholar distrusts this "scientific" activity, the aim of which seems to be the fragmentation of the collective historical African consciousness into minute facts and details.18 If the African anthropologist made a point of examining European races "under the magnifying glass," he would be able to multiply them ad infinitum by grouping physiognomies into races and sub-races as artificially as his European counterpart does with regard to Africa. He would, in turn, succeed in dissolving collective European reality into a fog of insignificant facts. Conclusion The condensation of our work that you have just read has by no means exhausted the subject; it is merely a progress report, prepared on the basis of documents available to us at the time. It is also an indication of the direction in which future generations of Black African scholars must continue calmly to work, for salvation lies at the end of that effort. Our various publications are rough outlines, successive stops in a scientific attempt to get closer and closer to the facts analyzed.
3. An aerial survey of Africa to retrace the ancient network of roads. 276 Conclusion 277 If, by scientific knowledge, we can eliminate all forms of the frustrations (cultural and others) which victimize peoples, the sincere rapprochement of mankind to create a true humanity will be fostered. May this volume contribute to that lofty objective! Cheikh Anta Diop
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: Most of halle berry ancestors are not white.The black gene is the strongest by the way,RASOL AND YOU are the fool.
LOL Kenndo YOU are the fool! Halle Berry's mother is white!! Which means all if not most of her ancestors on her mothers side are white!
There is no such thing as a "black" gene! Halle has half of her genese from her father and half from her mother equally! She has BOTH European and African ancestry.
quote:Most east africans do not have straight noses. not the ones i see.most east africans live in kenya,sudan and tanzania and mosty there do not have staright noses.
LOL Not the ones in the Horn. Straight noses are most typical and common among the Horn region-- Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.
quote:That is a lie told by racist. Even in each horn of african state,there are large numbers of blacks with flat noses.
Yes certain populations in the Horn still have flat noses, but many more have straight and narrow noses! The only lie told by racists is that those Africans with straight narrow noses have "caucasoid" ancestry!! And YOU have obviously bought into those lies hook, line, and sinker!
I don't understand why you are so desperate to associate flat noses with Africans and deny the phenotypic diversity of Africans!
quote:The oromo pictures i showed earlier are example of this,so let us not get carried away here.please.
YOU are the one who is carried away by Eurocentric myth!
There are Europeans whose noses are not thin and narrow but are somewhat wide.
quote:I know you are trying to make a point.The horn of africa and the coast in the sudan did have outsiders that did settled there OVER THE YEARS.
Yes, and these outsiders were very few and have NOTHING to do with straight narrow noses as such noses are indigenous to the area.
quote:There was a major impact over the years there.NOT everyone has mixed in the horn of africa,but there is a admixture in large part of the population.IT IS less so in southern ethiopia.
Hey what could i say.This is what i read over the years,even in recent books.
If some form of LATER admixture happen,it happen. ALOT of eastern europeans had admixture from asians,and while they are not happy about it,some do not deny it either.
Again, admixture has absolutely NOTHING to do whatsoever with non "flat" features!
quote:Tell you what,this is for anybody here.I WILL stir up the the bees nest one more time since i do have a knack for it time to time.
Yes, you do seem to have a knack for stirring things up with false and inaccurate information.
quote:let's be honest,seriously AND NO NAME CALLING .Did any scientist did genetic tests on large numbers of people from the horn of africa and the tutsi,and i mean states like ethiopia,somalia,eritrea and djibouti. and did any said there was a certain amount of admixture.
Yes there was genetic testing in these areas. The only area in the Horn with significant foreign ancestry is in Ethiopia particularly the northern parts, but again this has NOTHING to do with physical features. Somalis by and large have the same features as Ethiopians but foreign ancestry is extremely minimal.
Also, Tutsis do no live in the Horn but in Central Africa!! There was virtually little if any mixing with foreigners and Tutsi carry predominantly carry lineages common to West Africa (E3a) and not even East Africa!!
quote:This SHOULD BE THE real meat of the issue,because i could have sworn i read this somewhere that admixture was found in large parts of the horn of africa.
Nope, just in Ethiopia and in only about 30% of the population mainly in the northern areas. Again nothing to do with nasal morphology.
quote:So forget everything else i said OVER THE days,let's deal with this issue.
How can we, when you continue to argue about it even now?!
quote:Example,did anyone take a gene test on haile selassie and found any outside admixture. tell me the truth.
I don't know about any genetic testing, but you are right that Haile Selassie definitely looks mixed which is no surprise because the royal family has been known to intermarry with foreigners which is irrelevant to the genentic make-up of the general population!
quote:If these test were taken and they were found to have no outside influence,i will shut up and not bring this issue up again,because i think it is healthy this get this part out of the way SINCE this is not news and most folks do not know the real deal here.let's be honest too,most folks on the planet who read books about africa do read that there was later admixture in the horm of africa for large parts of the population,so i will admit i am torn about this.I HAVE READ SOURCES abouth this not long ago,but when i come here other names of books are giving to me and we all know scholars could have there agenda too,so i do not trust everything that is said on the internet.I REMEMBER when i first started using the internet,my friends said beware,there will be ideas so different from yours and what you learn you will think you are in the twight zone.
Again no, because the Ethiopian royal family does not reflect the general population.
quote:I STILL CAN'T believe when i was on brazzil.com i had a debate if halle berry was white or black.
Halle Berry is irrelevant to the FACT that indigenous Africans do not just have "flat noses" or "nasal tips".
quote:THIS is what i get i suppose when i join these type of forums.
NOW don't lie to me and the public please. I KNOW a few new york univ. african scholars that that have keita's phone number and i have some numbers too and i will reach colombia univ. african studies.
If they tell me something different that is posted on this board.I will say so the next time,and only once because after that no more debates.
SO GIVE me the answer,and i will get the answer from these scholars soon and we could all compare notes.
I WILL TELL you what these scholars and anthropologist say vs what is said on this forum,deal?deal.
I WILL give it a rest for now.
HEY i can't edited .sorry i could not edit for the above.I CLICK the edit link but it is not working.
Bla, bla, bla! You are WRONG, just admit it!! Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: rasol.in that book,please does it mentions any test were taken?
You have already been shown test data from the book in question.
You have also already shown data on the Tutsi you claim to be part white:
So why are you asking questions that have already been answered?
Especially in that you have
- no data.
- no ability to understand the data.
- total disregard for data.
Given that you are someone who denies that halle berry is part white - even when confronted with the physical realite of her white mother, most of us have figured out to simply disregard your nonsense.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:nubia first populations like ausar and i said came from the central and southern sahara. we all know this,no need to open up a can of worms again.
As usual you miss the point, Keita is demonstrating that regardless of how so called 'nubia' is conceptualised tropical Africans form the basis of nile valley civilision, and cannot be delmited and explained away as 'nubians' popping up in mysterious places.
Make 'excuses' for the Black African contribution to Nile Valley civilisation...is what Nubia is *for*.
Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Given that you are someone who denies that halle berry is part white.....
Yes, I thought this was well known.
Kenndo Halle Berry is a very proud woman of color, but seriously her mother is White(European-American).
If you don't feel enough evidence for this has been provided look no further than this video of her Oscar performance where she thanks her mother (at about 1:48):
All of this talk about "flat noses" and "White-looking" noses sounds like a throwback to Carletoon Coon-esque anthropology, didn't get enough of that with Evil-Euro?
The bottomline is that high nose bridges and narrow nostrils are just as indegenious to Africa as low nose bridges and broad nostrils. They can not simply be explained by foreign admixture.
And Africans have had this variety in phenotype before people who resembled modern Europeans even existed!
So do narrow-nosed people within populations like the Fulani and Somali have noses like Europeans or do Europeans have noses like the Fulani and Somali?
The reason that you are met with such a fierce rebuttle on this forum when you parrot these misconceptions Kenndo is because you play right into the Eurocentrists' hands.
They will use sculptures of Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs with narrow noses or skeletons with narrow nasal openings (like Tutankamen's) to say that "This person does not have Negroid facial features (i.e. flat nose) therefore he is non-African/Caucasoid/European/Asiatic/Hamitic/not Black African etc."
The Africanist when met with this point of view will be stumped because he precribes to the same racialist perspective as his Eurocentric opponent.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Stellar post. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Indeed, it is this nasal pseudo science that allows Eurocentric nuts to claim African peoples and cultures as "kacazoid" because of narrow noses, and Afrocentric nuts to claim everyone else from Indians to Chinese as "nigroid" because of flat noses!!
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
As you can see the Tutsi man above has a nose that corresponds to what many would call a "white" or European nose.
Here are other picture of Tutsis:
As you can see above they all have narrow bridges AND narrow nasal openings not "flat" openings as you say.
And yet, NON of of them have any foreign non-African ancestry.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ one of the inherently racist aspects of nasal science definition - is that it allows whites of europe to have have either round or pointed, narrow or medium nasal passages without questioning their authentically 'european' heritage, while dissallowing the same variability amongst africans and east asians.
why any intelligent africanist would buy into this white supremacist discourse is completely baffling to me.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Indeed, it is this nasal pseudo science that allows Eurocentric nuts to claim African peoples and cultures as "kacazoid" because of narrow noses, and Afrocentric nuts to claim everyone else from Indians to Chinese as "nigroid" because of flat noses!!
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
As you can see the Tutsi man above has a nose that corresponds to what many would call a "white" or European nose.
Here are other picture of Tutsis:
As you can see above they all have narrow bridges AND narrow nasal openings not "flat" openings as you say.
And yet, NON of of them have any foreign non-African ancestry.
stop putting words in my mouth,fool. I NEVER SAID THESE FOLKS AHD FLAT NOSES.THEY ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE PICTURES I PUT UP.MR. BLIND.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: rasol.in that book,please does it mentions any test were taken?
You have already been shown test data from the book in question.
You have also already shown data on the Tutsi you claim to be part white:
So why are you asking questions that have already been answered?
Especially in that you have
- no data.
- no ability to understand the data.
- total disregard for data.
Given that you are someone who denies that halle berry is part white - even when confronted with the physical realite of her white mother, most of us have figured out to simply disregard your nonsense.
i never said that the that man was par white,but he could have heavy white influence. I NEVER denied halle berry mother was white either. she is part black,and she looks black.half of her genes is black,not mostly white rasol
I CAN'T STAND some of YOU GUYS now because you have a habit of saying things i have not said.
I DON'T think this is the proper forum anymore to discuss this with some of you.it seems SOME OF YOU don't want to get it.
IT DOES NOT MATTER if admixture was small or not in the horn of africa,did it happen or not period and since you said it did in northern ethiopia and in somali,the admixture to may played a part.SOME folks here DO HAVE AN AGENDA,i clearly know that now.you could always find scholars that could say something else. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I am talking ABOUT but go on,play dumb.I GIVE UP ON THIS FORUM.
I had enough.I rather talk to live folks that could really see the point.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: i never said that the that man was part white,but he could have heavy white influence.
What the heck does that mean?!
Influence, how? Are you saying that the man was pyschologically influenced to have facial reconstruction including a nose job to get such features??
quote:I NEVER denied halle berry mother was white either. she is part black,and she looks black.half of her genes is black,not mostly white rasol
How 'black' someone looks is a matter of opinion. In West Africa people like Halle Berry would just look 'white' period and not black.
Also, technically there is no such thing as 'black' or 'white' genes. Phenotype is determined by a number of variable genes and do not conform to a certain 'race'.
quote:I CAN'T STAND some of YOU GUYS now because you have a habit of saying things i have not said.
Then explain to us what exactly are you saying??
From what I gather, you believe pure Africans must have a wide nasal tip or something and that pointy noses are somehow non-African. am I right?
quote:I DON'T think this is the proper forum anymore to discuss this with some of you.it seems SOME OF YOU don't want to get it.
The only thing we don't want to get is B.S.
quote:IT DOES NOT MATTER if admixture was small or not in the horn of africa,did it happen or not period and since you said it did in northern ethiopia and in somali,the admixture to may played a part.SOME folks here DO HAVE AN AGENDA,i clearly know that now.you could always find scholars that could say something else. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I am talking ABOUT but go on,play dumb.I GIVE UP ON THIS FORUM.
Apparently YOU don't want to get it that admixture DOES NOT MATTER because such features you attribute to admixture has nothing to do with it!
Admixture may have played a part in Ethiopia perhaps, but in Somalia foreign ancestry is negligible, and in Rwanda, Central Africa there is virtually non!
quote:I had enough.I rather talk to live folks that could really see the point.
Or rather brain-dead folks that could see YOUR baseless point.
You can just stop your whining.
Paul Kagame (Central African Tutsi)
Waris Dirie (East African Somali)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Sparring with each other, on trivial issues such as this, is definitely a bad idea. The real issue is getting this information and this form of debate over FACTS out into the larger community and out of a small closed community that does not have institutions to spread the knowledge.
A perfect example of what I mean. This morning I was watching a saturday morning cartoon show and it had some kids going back in time to find a book. Th e humans they ran across were said to be cro-magnons and since this was a show with a scientific/educational slant for kids, they threw in all sorts of "facts" about the historical period they were in. The cro-magnons were depicted as the first modern humans in history to practice any sort of organized living. Of course they were also depicted as white. HOWEVER, when they showed the "dumb" neanderthals, guess what, they were distinctly brown skinned. Hence, the point is that all of this stuff about modern humans and those traits associated to Europeans that are supposedly "unique" to Europe, stems back to the desire by Europeans to clim "firsts" in all things human. Therefore, cromagnon Europeans are NOT depicted as the LAST in a long line of human development, but somehow the FIRST, as in the FIRST to create cave art, the FIRST to make calendars, the FIRST to make necklaces, in short the FIRST to do anything more than grunt and scratch. While WE know better, the point is that these LIES and distortions are STILL being spread as part of a system of educational bias and disinformation. Of course, when questioned, scientists will whip out all sorts of tactics to avoid the bias evident in their scholarship. They will say that they didnt mean FIRST for ALL humans, but FIRST in Europe. But WE know that they OMIT such things as FIRST European whenever they talk about European history and PURPOSELY try to make European history a BENCHMARK for ALL human achievement. Therefore, no matter WHAT other humans were doing ANYWHERE else in the world, it wasnt important or worthy of mention until Europeans did it. This attempt to make European history and culture some sort of UNIVERSAL standard of human achievement and development is also evident in anthropology. Therefore, even though the FIRST humans appeared in Africa, NO anthropologist REALLY attempts to study and document the development and growth of human society and achievement until these humans are OUTSIDE of Africa. Along with this BIAS towards development and civilization as taking place OUTSIDE Africa, there is the bias of human FEATURES somehow originating OUTSIDE Africa as well.
This is the crux of the issue we are debating. Europeans want to make EVERYTHING about Europeans some sort of unique STANDARD by which all humans are measured, when in reality Europeans are the LAST of the anatomically modern humans to arrive on the scene. Europeans are among the LAST humans to arrive at civilization and are the LAST to study and expand Empire in the name of "civilization". All of this must be taken into account when looking at the reasons for the many attempts to classify African features as somehow belonging to "European whites", when "European whites" did not exist when such features originated in the first anatomically modern humans.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: Most of halle berry ancestors are not white.The black gene is the strongest by the way,RASOL AND YOU are the fool.
There is no such thing as a "black" gene! Halle has half of her genese from her father and half from her mother equally! She has BOTH European and African ancestry.
quote:Most east africans do not have straight noses. not the ones i see.most east africans live in kenya,sudan and tanzania and mosty there do not have staright noses.
LOL Not the ones in the Horn. Straight noses are most typical and common among the Horn region-- Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.
quote:That is a lie told by racist. Even in each horn of african state,there are large numbers of blacks with flat noses.
Yes certain populations in the Horn still have flat noses, but many more have straight and narrow noses! The only lie told by racists is that those Africans with straight narrow noses have "caucasoid" ancestry!! And YOU have obviously bought into those lies hook, line, and sinker!
I don't understand why you are so desperate to associate flat noses with Africans and deny the phenotypic diversity of Africans!
quote:The oromo pictures i showed earlier are example of this,so let us not get carried away here.please.
YOU are the one who is carried away by Eurocentric myth!
There are Europeans whose noses are not thin and narrow but are somewhat wide.
quote:I know you are trying to make a point.The horn of africa and the coast in the sudan did have outsiders that did settled there OVER THE YEARS.
Yes, and these outsiders were very few and have NOTHING to do with straight narrow noses as such noses are indigenous to the area.
quote:There was a major impact over the years there.NOT everyone has mixed in the horn of africa,but there is a admixture in large part of the population.IT IS less so in southern ethiopia.
Hey what could i say.This is what i read over the years,even in recent books.
If some form of LATER admixture happen,it happen. ALOT of eastern europeans had admixture from asians,and while they are not happy about it,some do not deny it either.
Again, admixture has absolutely NOTHING to do whatsoever with non "flat" features!
quote:Tell you what,this is for anybody here.I WILL stir up the the bees nest one more time since i do have a knack for it time to time.
Yes, you do seem to have a knack for stirring things up with false and inaccurate information.
quote:let's be honest,seriously AND NO NAME CALLING .Did any scientist did genetic tests on large numbers of people from the horn of africa and the tutsi,and i mean states like ethiopia,somalia,eritrea and djibouti. and did any said there was a certain amount of admixture.
Yes there was genetic testing in these areas. The only area in the Horn with significant foreign ancestry is in Ethiopia particularly the northern parts, but again this has NOTHING to do with physical features. Somalis by and large have the same features as Ethiopians but foreign ancestry is extremely minimal.
Also, Tutsis do no live in the Horn but in Central Africa!! There was virtually little if any mixing with foreigners and Tutsi carry predominantly carry lineages common to West Africa (E3a) and not even East Africa!!
quote:This SHOULD BE THE real meat of the issue,because i could have sworn i read this somewhere that admixture was found in large parts of the horn of africa.
Nope, just in Ethiopia and in only about 30% of the population mainly in the northern areas. Again nothing to do with nasal morphology.
quote:So forget everything else i said OVER THE days,let's deal with this issue.
How can we, when you continue to argue about it even now?!
quote:Example,did anyone take a gene test on haile selassie and found any outside admixture. tell me the truth.
I don't know about any genetic testing, but you are right that Haile Selassie definitely looks mixed which is no surprise because the royal family has been known to intermarry with foreigners which is irrelevant to the genentic make-up of the general population!
quote:If these test were taken and they were found to have no outside influence,i will shut up and not bring this issue up again,because i think it is healthy this get this part out of the way SINCE this is not news and most folks do not know the real deal here.let's be honest too,most folks on the planet who read books about africa do read that there was later admixture in the horm of africa for large parts of the population,so i will admit i am torn about this.I HAVE READ SOURCES abouth this not long ago,but when i come here other names of books are giving to me and we all know scholars could have there agenda too,so i do not trust everything that is said on the internet.I REMEMBER when i first started using the internet,my friends said beware,there will be ideas so different from yours and what you learn you will think you are in the twight zone.
Again no, because the Ethiopian royal family does not reflect the general population.
quote:I STILL CAN'T believe when i was on brazzil.com i had a debate if halle berry was white or black.
Halle Berry is irrelevant to the FACT that indigenous Africans do not just have "flat noses" or "nasal tips".
quote:THIS is what i get i suppose when i join these type of forums.
NOW don't lie to me and the public please. I KNOW a few new york univ. african scholars that that have keita's phone number and i have some numbers too and i will reach colombia univ. african studies.
If they tell me something different that is posted on this board.I will say so the next time,and only once because after that no more debates.
SO GIVE me the answer,and i will get the answer from these scholars soon and we could all compare notes.
I WILL TELL you what these scholars and anthropologist say vs what is said on this forum,deal?deal.
I WILL give it a rest for now.
HEY i can't edited .sorry i could not edit for the above.I CLICK the edit link but it is not working.
Bla, bla, bla! You are WRONG, just admit it!!
LOL Kenndo YOU are the fool! Halle Berry's mother is white!! Which means all if not most of her ancestors on her mothers side are white!
I guess she is not half black,and her father is not black at all,right?how dumb could you be.
[/QUOTE]LOL Not the ones in the Horn. Straight noses are most typical and common among the Horn region-- Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.
that is my point,most east african population do not live in the horn.ethiopia is the only larger states there.the others have small populations.
[/QUOTE]Yes certain populations in the Horn still have flat noses, but many more have straight and narrow noses! The only lie told by racists is that those Africans with straight narrow noses have "caucasoid" ancestry!! And YOU have obviously bought into those lies hook, line, and sinker!
true,that is what i said,but it is most likely in africa except the ice age in europe,the high bridge nose feature,may have come because of some fform of admixture,but they are still black.if you took a test to find out?no.
quote:So forget everything else i said OVER THE days,let's deal with this issue.
How can we, when you continue to argue about it even now?!
this was not even the original issue.rasol brought it up to change the subject. iwas talking to doug about something else,but he bought is NOSE into our business.
[/QUOTE]Again no, because the Ethiopian royal family does not reflect the general population.
I DON'T THINK SO.I THINK IT does reflect the population to a large scale but not as deep,has the royal family,and that is my main point.
OTHER sources,from AFRICAN SCHOLARS do say otherwise,up to recent books that i have read.not the ones you kept bring up.they are not the only areas to read about these things,since these folks could have agenda,like all people,including me.
[/QUOTE]Bla, bla, bla! You are WRONG, just admit it!!
back to you buddy.
I THINK i should bail out now since there is nothing left for me here,and the agenda is so clear here.there seems to be folks here that wish that narrow noses with high bridges are native to africa.I DON'T TRUST that are post who say that,after all i don't know rasol or some anybody here.
I WILL GET other souces of info,but i can't now because i rather talk live to some of these scholars first before reading there books,even the ones but out by rasol.
I LIKE this reply to my reply however.you come much more straight to the point than rasol.you call names,but at least you made your point more clearly so i could respond like this.i should have been talking to you in the first place abou this than rasol.but any way,i have losting interest on this forum for quite some time. FOR THIS need to talk with real scholars,and get other varied sources of info,other than the books given here.then again in those books i view the info abit different when those quotes are posted here and since i have not read the whole book,i can't come to real jugdement yet.TIME WILL tell.
WHEN I GET THE clear info this time i will private email some of you,i finally tell you want i think.BUT that is as far as i will go on this forum from on.IF YOU WANT TO OPEN THEM OR MOT THAT WILL BE UP TO YOU.I WOULD at least know the real truth by than.
bye bye.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: i never said that the that man was part white,but he could have heavy white influence.
What the heck does that mean?!
Influence, how? Are you saying that the man was pyschologically influenced to have facial reconstruction including a nose job to get such features??
quote:I NEVER denied halle berry mother was white either. she is part black,and she looks black.half of her genes is black,not mostly white rasol
How 'black' someone looks is a matter of opinion. In West Africa people like Halle Berry would just look 'white' period and not black.
Also, technically there is no such thing as 'black' or 'white' genes. Phenotype is determined by a number of variable genes and do not conform to a certain 'race'.
quote:I CAN'T STAND some of YOU GUYS now because you have a habit of saying things i have not said.
Then explain to us what exactly are you saying??
From what I gather, you believe pure Africans must have a wide nasal tip or something and that pointy noses are somehow non-African. am I right?
quote:I DON'T think this is the proper forum anymore to discuss this with some of you.it seems SOME OF YOU don't want to get it.
The only thing we don't want to get is B.S.
quote:IT DOES NOT MATTER if admixture was small or not in the horn of africa,did it happen or not period and since you said it did in northern ethiopia and in somali,the admixture to may played a part.SOME folks here DO HAVE AN AGENDA,i clearly know that now.you could always find scholars that could say something else. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I am talking ABOUT but go on,play dumb.I GIVE UP ON THIS FORUM.
Apparently YOU don't want to get it that admixture DOES NOT MATTER because such features you attribute to admixture has nothing to do with it!
Admixture may have played a part in Ethiopia perhaps, but in Somalia foreign ancestry is negligible, and in Rwanda, Central Africa there is virtually non!
quote:I had enough.I rather talk to live folks that could really see the point.
Or rather brain-dead folks that could see YOUR baseless point.
You can just stop your whining.
Paul Kagame (Central African Tutsi)
Waris Dirie (East African Somali)
[/QUOTE]How 'black' someone looks is a matter of opinion. In West Africa people like Halle Berry would just look 'white' period and not black.
to some,yes but they are blind,and to others ,she would lOOK black. like SOMEONE I KNOW FROM WEST AFRICA WH MENTION IT TO ME.
BY THE WAY i think you got that wrong,is some in west africa,know tha t you are part white but look black they will still call you white.there was a show on that on pbs,i was shock when i first heard it but not surprise since these areas were conqured by europe.certain mindset do need to be awaken.and i am not whining.i don't whine.teenage girls do that.nobody in my live ever said i whine.
Admixture may have played a part in Ethiopia perhaps, but in Somalia foreign ancestry is negligible, and in Rwanda, Central Africa there is virtually non! I KNOW THIS,BUT I READ THAT the tusi may have come there from the horn of african states or one of them. I GOT TO CHECK MORE INTO THIS.this mat be the main key to the issue.
I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS ONE UP ,because if they do not have any outside admixture,that you may be telling the truth about many in the horn of africa,but they could still be two different issues.I WILL KNOW for sure,when i talk to real scholars.I WOULD FEEL BETTER when i do,but i did not have a chance this year or last year,i have been busy. I WILL make that a main point to contact one or two at least this year.i did send a email to two.i hope they get back with me soon.
THEY WILL give me the real deal.i even sent this page to them.i will see what they make of it,since i talk to them before i came here,and i do trust them enough.
now bye.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
OH,THE white chick,she was born in america,her nose looks broad but they key is to get a good look at her nose if her head is up.
Alot of whites in america do have recent and native blood,so who knows.
ABOUT 40% OF WHITES IN AMERICA HAVE SOME FORM OF black or native blood,or both.MARK SHIVER AND SOME OTHERS HAVE MENTION THIS.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
DJEHUTI I WILL PRIVATE EMAIL YOU.look out for it.
IF YOU DO NOT DO private emails fine.
this is my last post on this subject in public.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^^ good move.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
DougM
quote:
This is the crux of the issue we are debating. Europeans want to make EVERYTHING about Europeans some sort of unique STANDARD by which all humans are measured, when in reality Europeans are the LAST of the anatomically modern humans to arrive on the scene. Europeans are among the LAST humans to arrive at civilization and are the LAST to study and expand Empire in the name of "civilization". All of this must be taken into account when looking at the reasons for the many attempts to classify African features as somehow belonging to "European whites", when "European whites" did not exist when such features originated in the first anatomically modern humans.
Great observation of the subliminal nature of imprinting white supremist ideas among youth.
.
Posted by Kendall123 (Member # 12770) on :
I am reading a book - The Destruction of Black Civilization, written by Chancellor Williams. It describes the way people are portrayed. He talks about how the standard of beauty in Egypt fluctuated over time. As more an more Arabs arrived from the north, and were welcomed, many sought to look that way. Just as egyptians wanted to be portrayed in the ideal way to be preserved for the afterlife (strong, built, beautiful, young), depending on the period in question, black kings or queens might have been portrayed in caucasian ways. One exception being King Khafre, portrayed in the sphinx, and many others that we see. It depends on the mentality at the time and the self identity of the person in question. If he or she was mixed race, but identified more with one ethnicity, he or she may have preferred being portrayed in one way or the other.. Just some food for thought since photos are deceiving. We don't know what theses people looked like for certain, but we know one thing, that there was a black african majority in the south and a more of a arab majority in the north when egypt was at its height.
Posted by Pax Dahomensis (Member # 9851) on :
The funniest thing is that the original french title of the book is even more hypocritical and nonsensical than its english counterpart, since it is "Des Pharaons venus d'Afrique", translatable as "Pharaohs from Africa".
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kendall123: I am reading a book - The Destruction of Black Civilization, written by Chancellor Williams. It describes the way people are portrayed. He talks about how the standard of beauty in Egypt fluctuated over time. As more an more Arabs arrived from the north, and were welcomed, many sought to look that way. Just as egyptians wanted to be portrayed in the ideal way to be preserved for the afterlife (strong, built, beautiful, young), depending on the period in question, black kings or queens might have been portrayed in caucasian ways. One exception being King Khafre, portrayed in the sphinx, and many others that we see. It depends on the mentality at the time and the self identity of the person in question. If he or she was mixed race, but identified more with one ethnicity, he or she may have preferred being portrayed in one way or the other.. Just some food for thought since photos are deceiving. We don't know what theses people looked like for certain, but we know one thing, that there was a black african majority in the south and a more of a arab majority in the north when egypt was at its height.
I understand what you are saying but would like to add a couple points.
* There was never and 'arab majority' in any part of dynastic Egypt.
The Arabs invaded Egypt in 641 AD, amost a thousand years [!] after the last great Native dynasty [the 25th].
This is important because Arab revisionist history attempts to make Arabs a native part of the history of Kemet and Kush, and this is simply not true.
** Chancellor Williams masterpiece "Destruction of African Civilisation" should be essential reading, but it should be read in the context of being 'dated' in certain regards.
In Ivan Sertima's: Egypt, Child of Africa, he states that had Williams been privy to the later works of SOY Keita he likely would have reached different conclusions with regards to his somewhat simplistic view of African history consisting of Blacks vs. mixed race folks and Asians.
Not that their isn't *any* truth to that observation either...but Williams simply accepted at face value the true negro myth, a fallacy which includes the notion that the 'brown' are necessarily a mixture of the 'black' and the 'white'.
As with Diop, read Williams and learn...but then keep reading more current scholarship such as Keita and Ehret, Kittles, Underhill and Heirnaux.
Don't stop learning.
That was Kenndo's error [respectfully]. He stopped learning and resorted to quoting outdated myths such as the fallacy that African can only have 'broad' noses or otherwise they must be 'mixed' with whites.
This leads Kenndo to such baffling conclusions as - Tutsi and Somali are not 'unmixed blacks', but Halle Berry [whose mother is white], somehow is.
Such concepts - even biased Eurocentric scholars do not traffic in [at least blatantly] anymore.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis: The funniest thing is that the original french title of the book is even more hypocritical and nonsensical than its english counterpart, since it is "Des Pharaons venus d'Afrique", translatable as "Pharaohs from Africa".
“The Egyptians were not Nubians, and the *original Nubians were not black. Nubia gradually became black because black peoples migrated northward out of Central Africa.” - Miriam Lichtheim
Dissembling, the Nubia ruse and operative strategy:
quote: 1) Egypt is reassigned to the 'middle east'.
2) Africans [Blacks] are re-assigned to Nubia.
3) Finally - anything "Nubian" of historical value is then re-assigned to Egypt [the middle east].
Nubia ruse - in action:
Why not use Nubia?," I have been asked? The answer is that these civilizations did not build pyramids and temples that impressed the classical writers with their power, antiquity, and wisdom. -Ann Macy Roth.
There are actually more pyramids in Nubia than in the rest of Egypt - - but Roth would have her readers remain ignorant of this, she takes the liberty of assigning them to Egypt, and not to "nubia", actual locale notwithstanding.
Following this scheme - it is possible to deny all African involvement in the building of Nile Valley civilisation.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Ausar wrote: 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.
^ Lest they run dry of rationale for separating "Nubian from Ancient Egyptian" - Blacks [km.t], on their own terms and throughout pre-Eurocentric history.
In fact, they're entire argument is based upon control of the discourse rooted in their racial ideology.
Even the notion that black is necessarily a 'modern western racial concept', a ludicrous lie which i've heard Africans on this forum repeat after, is intended to control who can be and who cannot be black.
It's very important that African scholars understand the intended result of this strategy.
If exists - ethnic group X in which X is necessarily modern, and not applicable to history - - > then ethnic group X has *no history*.
This is exactly what is intended by the specious 'black is only modern concept' argument.
As Ausar notes, the hypocrisy is exposed whenever the very peoples who make this argument freely, and at will, utilise the term Black in a historical context [ie Black 25th dynasty], and in so doing, completely contradict themselves.
And operative example of this would be Eurocentric classicist Frank Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity, which looks at Blacks in the world of Ancient Greece and Rome.
Whenever you hear a Eurocentrist go into their reflexive apologetics against Herodotus reference to Ancient Egyptians as Blacks, think of Frank Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity, which is dedicated precisely to locating Blacks in pre-ws.t discourse, and received no criticism on those grounds.
Snowden wasn't criticised because he learned and accepted long ago that the underlying rationale behind the feign confusion over the notion of Blacks, is to make sure that Black is defined in a way that is sufficiently castrated, so as not to threaten white supremacy.
Ironically, the white scholar Martin Bernal still offers the definitive deconstruction of classicist Snowden, and in effect, the hypocritical posturing of Eurocentrists against "Blacks....in antiquity".
A very small number of black academics, notably Frank Snowden, the leading professor in the field at the chief black university, Howard, have been successful within Classics. They have concentrated on gleaning what little credit the Aryan model allows to Blacks while accepting both its prohibitions: the nonacceptance of a black component of Egyptian culture, and the denial of the Afroasiatic formative elements in Greek civilization. Ten years and many polemics later, I still hold to that assessment. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Notice Bernal's clear cut distinction as he
defines only a "black component" within "Egyptian culture"
dialectically suggests absense of blacks by use of "Afroasiatic" in regards to "formative elements in Greek civilization"
Let's not loose sight of the fact that Bernal's aim is to primarily credit his supposed Semite ancestors, not the blacks of Africa, as the civilizing factor in the north Mediterranean, thus offering a Semitic model to complement the ancient and the aryanist models.
While we owe not a thing to Bernal in the discourse of Africana studies, we owe a world of debt and gratitude to Snowden who since at least 1948 has diligently uncovered both artworks and writings from the Greco-Roman era pertaining to African, black, and "coloured" folk in the south and north Mediterranean axes.
Without primarily the likes of Snowden (and Hansberry) we'd've missed out on many relevant texts alluding to the African/black factor outside of the Nile Valley. Having his documented sources we can draw our own conclusions and discount whatever ones he deduces relying on methodologies that remove him and AE's from African/black category.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:While we owe not a thing to Bernal in the discourse of Africana studies, we owe a world of debt and gratitude to Snowden who since at least 1948 has diligently uncovered both artworks and writings from the Greco-Roman erapertaining to African, black, and "coloured" folk in the south and north Mediterranean axes.
You make a good point.
Snowden is certainly the more accomplished scholar.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Having his documented sources we can draw our own conclusions and discount whatever ones he deduces relying on methodologies that remove him and AE's from African/black category.
...which is significant in that the latter are Africans on the African continent, and if anything, imo, outweighs whatever he may deduce about the involvement of 'black' Africans outside of Africa.
“…Although we know from art Ethiopians who might well be described as Aethiopes capillati (long-haired), scholars, who should have looked to art or anthropology for assistance, have excogitated fanciful explanations of this phrase. Or to say that one should not expect to find Negroes in Carthage because the races of northern Africa were totally distinct of Negroes of central Africa ignores the literary and archeological evidence which demonstrates clearly that Negroid types lived not only in sub-Egypt Africa but also in various parts of the Greco-Roman world…
Philostratus observed that as one proceeded south of Egypt up the Nile one found that the inhabitants were darker. Those dwelling near the boundaries between Egypt and Ethiopia were not completely black but were half-breeds as to color, in part not as black as the Ethiopians but in part blacker than Egyptians.26 Interesting in this connection is the Barberini mosaic at Palestrina depicting Egyptian landscape and the Nile in flood. The figures in the foreground are whites, while hunters on a mountain at the top of the mosaic, representing the southernmost figures up the Nile, are blacks.27
In their comments on gradations of color observable among Ethiopians, the ancients did not overlook the changes in color resulting from racial admixture between blacks and whites. The child of a white mother and an Ethiopian father was decolor (discolor). These words were often used to describe the skin color of peoples of India and Mauretania. Hence, the Roman usage of these words to describe children born of Ethiopian and white parents suggests that the children of such unions resembled in color the lighter Indians and Mauritanians. In other words, such black-white crosses were neither nigri or fusci, adjectives applied to Ethiopians, but decolores, corresponding perhaps to modern usage of the word “mullatoes.”28”
Snowden should be noted for both what he doesn’t mention, and what he does mention.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar, quoting Snowden: Interesting in this connection is the Barberini mosaic at Palestrina depicting Egyptian landscape and the Nile in flood. The figures in the foreground are whites [italics mines], while hunters on a mountain at the top of the mosaic, representing the southernmost figures up the Nile, are blacks.27
Who are these leucoderms? Even most of those arguing that the ancient Egyptians were "Caucasoid" don't consider them literally "white".
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Snowden actually specifically called the Egyptians -> "White masters of the Nubians".
We'll have to devote and entire thread to Snowden some day. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Keep in mind this is
only a mosaic
made in the Roman era -- c. 250 CE (CE = AD) --
not by Egyptian artisans
it depicts the situation after AE
While valuable as an art work presenting the ethnographic perceptions of its time and the mindset of its creators, it has nothing to do with the anthropology of pharaonic Egypt's delta.
No reason for delta residents in Roman times not to be rendered in "white" pigments since south Europeans had occupied that region for a couple of hundred years.
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar, quoting Snowden: Interesting in this connection is the Barberini mosaic at Palestrina depicting Egyptian landscape and the Nile in flood. The figures in the foreground are whites [italics mines], while hunters on a mountain at the top of the mosaic, representing the southernmost figures up the Nile, are blacks.27
Who are these leucoderms? Even most of those arguing that the ancient Egyptians were "Caucasoid" don't consider them literally "white".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Judging from his quadroon/octoroon phenotype and his writings distinguishing various grades of colour relating them to "negro" "intermediate gradients" "non-negro" and other such terminology of the period he grew up in, it's small wonder Snowden displayed symptoms of the ill side of "mulatto madness" suffered by some DuBois would dub "the talented tenth" commonly known as the "brown bag society".
All this being a failed attempt to establish a post-emancipation colorocracy among USA middle passage descendents similar to the colour castes of the West Indies, Caribbean, and Latin America.
And yes it'd be good to give Snowden his well deserved dings and dues occasionally discussed here from time to time but never in a thread all its own.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Snowden actually specifically called the Egyptians -> "White masters of the Nubians".
We'll have to devote and entire thread to Snowden some day.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:All this being a failed attempt to establish a post-emancipation colorocracy among USA middle passage descendents similar to the colour castes of the West Indies, Caribbean, and Latin America.
We used to have a poster here who would attempt to hide his anti-Black posturings under the guise of being against 'colorism', and for 'mixture'.
Implicitly - any reference to Blacks in history would be - 'colorism'.
But this is actually backwards.
Colorism - is essentially a system of discriminating against the Black, for the sake of the 'mixed', in and American context.
The "brown paper bag test" was a ritual once practiced by certain African-American sororities and fraternities who discriminated against people who were "too dark." That is, these groups would not let anyone into the sorority or fraternity whose skin tone was darker than a paper lunch sack. http://www.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Colorism
Colorism = mixed-race-ism.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And there is no reason to imply or assume that the type of colorism that stems from a devaluing of people with black skin ever took place in Egypt. The whole idea of trying to imply that the Kushite Kings of the 25th dynasty were the first "black" pharoahs of the Nile is utterly ridiculous. Like Rasol said earlier, if "black" is a modern social term that has no meaning for ancient people along the Nile, then why use it for Kushites? And even if the Egyptians painted some groups from the South as jet black, I doubt most people from the Upper Nile in the Sudan actually were jet black. Most probably were the same shade of brown as the Egyptians, with some who were probably darker. But that is true for many African groups. Some of the tribes in Upper Sudan are quite dark to this day, but across Sudan and Africa, populations have a range of complexions and everyone South of the Sahara is not jet black. And those in Africa who aren't jet black are not somehow mixed either. Africans have a range of complexions most darker than white and the Egyptians certainly fit into the normal range of black African skin complexions.
It has been shown that the earliest form of Kingship came from the South of Egypt above the 1st cataract. Also, over Egypt's dynastic history many kings married women from the South and after times of crisis the Egyptians always got support from the South against the invaders from the North. Therefore, there is no historical or anthropological basis for saying that the Kushites were the first black Kings of Egypt.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:And there is no reason to imply or assume that the type of colorism that stems from a devaluing of people with black skin ever took place in Egypt.
There is proof of the opposite for anyone who listen to the Kemetians instead of letting ws.t racism tell them what to think.
Km.t held Black sacred.
They considered themselves Black, their ancestors Black, the Gods, Black.
This fact is devastating to Eurocentric Egyptology, and leads directly to their contrived hypocritical rhetoric.
What's important is for African scholars to see right thru it.
- There is no 'intrinsic problem' with referring to AE as Black.
- - Don't get baited by Eurocentrists into chasing down their purposefully inane racial definitions, especially when they hide them in non-racial, mixed-racial, or racially convoluted rhetoric [hamites, euafricans, medits, etc..].
The relevance of Blackness to and for the AE can be addressed directly thru the primary text.
It's not necessary for anti-Black - Ws.t, Arab or other imperialist agendas to 'sign off' in agreement.
It's only necessary for Africans to engage a direct discourse with their own history, and not be distracted by trying to 'convince' others.
If you focus on trying to convince and adversary you lose - because ultimately they control what they believe - and if your focus is also on their beliefs, they end up controling what you believe as well.
The way to defeat and imperialist agenda is to take charge of the issue by focus directly on what you can learn and know.
This was Diop's powerful approach, and SOY Keitas too.
You don't attempt to persuade and adversary, you simply make their objections irrelevant.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
of soft tissue. 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Recalling on...![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Yes, you do seem to have a knack for stirring things up with false and inaccurate information. 
