Nordicism, Afrocentrism and Antiquity

[Minstrel]

For starters, the very cover of "Black Spark..." has a preposterous (an unintentionally hilarious, I might add) depiction of a black man with strong Sub Saharan negroid features in ancient Egyptian garb.

What is so prepostrous about a black man in ancient egypt? What do you think it was impossible or something? In case you did'nt know that was the bust of a real man, his name is natsef-amun, he was part of the egyptian priesthood, forensic archeologists pieced togthether his facial features.

You probably have'nt read so much as a single page of that book, yet you are criticising it just on the basis of its title and premise. The man who wrote it devoted hundreds of hours to writing it, you have just hastily tore it down in minutes with haughty assumptions.

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer" humantag.

[topdog]

humantag said:

Are you joking? For starters, the very cover of "Black Spark..." has a preposterous (an unintentionally hilarious, I might add) depiction of a black man with strong Sub Saharan negroid features in ancient Egyptian garb.

That bust on the cover isn't preposterous, thats a bust reconstructed by Richard Neave from an ancient Upper Egyptian skull of Natsef-Amun. You don't know what you're talking about, just riddling off ridiculous claims in a boyish rage. here is more about Natsef-Amun

Here are links to reviews of both books, for those interested:

Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? (book review) by Alexander H. Joffe.

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, April 2002 v61 i2 p152

www.angeltowns.net/membercenter/100/dienekes/texts/poereview/

The case against Martin Bernal
by David Gress
www.newcriterion.com/archive/08/dec89/gress.htm

Everyone has there view individual views on books, just because someone criticizes a book in a negative way doesn't make the book wrong. Both Poe and Bernal got positive as well as negative reviews, big deal. You ignorantly judged a book by its cover[Natsef-Amun bust], no pun intended.

[humantag]

Minstrel said:

What is so prepostrous about a black man in ancient egypt? What do you think it was impossible or something? In case you did'nt know that was the bust of a real man, his name is natsef-amun, he was part of the egyptian priesthood, forensic archeologists pieced togthether his facial features.

You probably have'nt read so much as a single page of that book, yet you are criticising it just on the basis of its title and premise. The man who wrote it devoted hundreds of hours to writing it, you have just hastily tore it down in minutes with haughty assumptions.

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer" humantag.

The picture on the cover is cartoonish and looks ridiculous, regardless of who it's supposed to be, my friend.

I have in fact read the book. It's written by Richard Poe, an American neo-con whose politics tilt very much to the right and is a frequent critic of such things as political correctness and reparations for slavery and such, so people were quite surprised when he of all people came out with an afrocentrist tome.

The guy is a journalist and pundit, and not a bad one, but he is not trained as an anthropologist or historian and it shows in 'Black Fire'. I think the criticisms cited in the review I posted point out the shoddiness of his research here .

With all due respect, I found your comment about the fact that he took hours to write the book pretty weak - any book takes hours to write, this doesn't mean any critique that doesn't also take many hours is invalid.

I am offering comments in a three inch space on some dude's free website for crissakes, I'm not gonna write a thesis length rebuke Take it easy, my man.

[humantag]

Erudite said:

That bust on the cover isn't preposterous, thats a bust reconstructed by Richard Neave from an ancient Upper Egyptian skull of Natsef-Amun.

You ignorantly judged a book by its cover[Natsef-Amun bust], no pun intended.

Well, then its a preposterous bust reconstructed by Richard Neave from an ancient Upper Egyptian skull of Natsef-Amun.

The fact that its supposed to be the likeness of a real person hardly invalidates my subjective impression of it as preposterous, which it is. It reminds me of the Will Smith video when he dons Egyptian garb - rididuclous.

Commenting on a cover is not judging a book by it's cover.

You don't seem very happy - smile

[topdog]

humantag said:

Well, then its a preposterous bust reconstructed by Richard Neave from an ancient Upper Egyptian skull of Natsef-Amun.

Why is it presposterous? Just because you disagree with something or don't like it doesn't make the **FACT** of what it is presposterous. just because the bust doesn't fit your taste of what an Upper Egyptian should look like doesn't make it presposterous.

The fact that its supposed to be the likeness of a real person hardly invalidates my subjective impression of it as preposterous, which it is. It reminds me of the Will Smith video when he dons Egyptian garb - rididuclous.

The bust was reconstructed in the same manner and technology as the recent bust of King Tut, why aren't you calling tuts bust preposterous? Sticking your head in the sand and making ad-hominem attacks on Richard Neave does not in anyway validate your case. The question remains, **WHY** is it preposterous?

[Baladi]

Richard Poe really does not have an opinion on way or another. He just presents some evidence and lets the reader decide wheather to believe it or not. Many people here are probably a little paranoid because Richard Poe suggests that perhaps some Egyptian colonist came to parts of Greece. Personally, I am a little skeptical of this theory. Not really an advocate for the Black Athena debate. Other than I know some Mesopotamian,Egyptian,and Phonecian influences exist within ancient Greece.

[topdog]

Baladi said:

Richard Poe really does not have an opinion on way or another. He just presents some evidence and lets the reader decide wheather to believe it or not. Many people here are probably a little paranoid because Richard Poe suggests that perhaps some Egyptian colonist came to parts of Greece. Personally, I am a little skeptical of this theory. Not really an advocate for the Black Athena debate. Other than I know some Mesopotamian,Egyptian,and Phonecian influences exist within ancient Greece.

Thats exactly what Poe does, throughout the entire book he always asks the question, never makes the conclusion.

[alexandrian]

Erudite said:

The bust was reconstructed in the same manner and technology as the recent bust of King Tut, why aren't you calling tuts bust preposterous? Sticking your head in the sand and making ad-hominem attacks on Richard Neave does not in anyway validate your case. The question remains, **WHY** is it preposterous?

It was not made in the same manner and technology as King Tut. I believe the first CT scan done on a mummy was on King Ramses II just last year. Come on, in 15 years methods become much more advanced. I believe that the reconstructions of King Ramses II, Amun-her Khepeshef, and King Tut were more sophisticated and accurate. I haven't read Richard Poe's book, but I read through other Afrocentric books for fun like this one about "Africa's glorios history" the section about Egypt really made me laugh. It was all based on assumptions, and basically everything revolved around the whole "Kemet" article. It's ridiculous. I don't know what Richard Poe cites, but I've heard his book isn't very scholarly or convincing.

[topdog]

Alexandrian said:

It was not made in the same manner and technology as King Tut. I believe the first CT scan done on a mummy was on King Ramses II just last year. Come on, in 15 years methods become much more advanced. I believe that the reconstructions of King Ramses II, Amun-her Khepeshef, and King Tut were more sophisticated and accurate. I haven't read Richard Poe's book, but I read through other Afrocentric books for fun like this one about "Africa's glorios history" the section about Egypt really made me laugh. It was all based on assumptions, and basically everything revolved around the whole "Kemet" article. It's ridiculous. I don't know what Richard Poe cites, but I've heard his book isn't very scholarly or convincing.

You shouldn't judge what you haven't read because someone else says it bad. The Richard Neave construction was based on Natsef-Amuns skull.

[alexandrian]

Erudite said:

You shouldn't judge what you haven't read because someone else says it bad. The Richard Neave construction was based on Natsef-Amuns skull.

We'll see for sure how the majority of ancient Egyptians looked when the Egyptian Museum will finish scanning and reconstructing all the mummies by 2006 I think. That should be exciting.

[Crimson Guard]

Poe is a propagandists and closet case Afrocenrist,which advocates and promotes,whether directly or indirectly it doesn't matter..Most of his work stretched from pseudo-history to out-right fantasy revisionism . the vast majority of his "evidence" is anecdotal at the best.

[humantag]

Erudite said:

Why is it presposterous? Just because you disagree with something or don't like it doesn't make the **FACT** of what it is presposterous. just because the bust doesn't fit your taste of what an Upper Egyptian should look like doesn't make it presposterous.

The bust was reconstructed in the same manner and technology as the recent bust of King Tut, why aren't you calling tuts bust preposterous? Sticking your head in the sand and making ad-hominem attacks on Richard Neave does not in anyway validate your case. The question remains, **WHY** is it preposterous?

You have anger management issues, my brother

When did I make an adhominem attack on Neave? I said only that the cover on Poe's book strikes ME as preposterous. I am pretty sure I said this was a subjective impression didn't I? Why do you care so much what I think about this cover? Methinks he doth protest WAY too much.

As to the Tut bust, send me a pic and I'll tell you if I think its preposterous. I'd love to read about the reconstruction method as well, if you have a link.

You assume much. (Never forget Felix Unger's admonition - "Never ASSUME, for when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME" ). I haven't offered an opinion on what I think an Upper Egyptian 'should like like' (though its a safe bet they looked nothing like you). I will say however, that even if I were open to the idea that some Upper Egyptians might have looked like Eddie Murphy, I would still say that the Poe cover is silly looking.

Didn't I tell you to 'SMILE' before?

[alexandrian]

King Tut's reconstruction in an article by National Geographic. It was done using CT scans with the support of Egypt's SCA. There was a French team, an American team (who didn't know who they were working on) and an Egyptian team:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0511_050511_kingtutface.html

[humantag]

Alexandrian said:

King Tut's reconstruction in an article by National Geographic. It was done using CT scans with the support of Egypt's SCA. There was a French team, an American team (who didn't know who they were working on) and an Egyptian team:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0511_050511_kingtutface.html

Thanks Alexander. I actually quite like this - I would not call it preposterous. Is this the Tut recon 'Erudite' mentioned?

[alexandrian]

humantag said:

Thanks Alexander. I actually quite like this - I would not call it preposterous. Is this the Tut recon 'Erudite' mentioned?

I believe so