|
Post by Shenuda on Mar 17, 2005 4:43:16 GMT -5
I love it how you post an article written by a non-Egyptian black. That man is Senegalese, son of Kwame Nkrumah! Alexandrian, so far as I know, his father was president of Ghana and his mother is Egyptian! So he is not a "non-Egyptian black", but half-Egyptian mulatto! This is his mother Fathia Nkrumah: weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/499/profile.htm
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Mar 17, 2005 12:41:57 GMT -5
Believe it or not, I was actually starting to believe alexandrians arguments recently, (because I am willing to concede defeat and change my view) but then after some thinking and a little research, I started to doubt. For instance, Alexandrian says he is a copt or descended from coptic egyptians, whom he says are true egyptians. As if they are the true indicator of ancient egyptian ancestry, and attributes their west asian looks to how the AE's looked. I thought about it, at first it made sense, but then I thought about the succesive invasions by west asians into egypt over the centuries. By the time the christians reached egypt, it had already been conquered by 5 non-african nations! First the hyskos, assyrians, persians, greeks and the romans and later after the christian period by the arabs. then I looked at the bust of narmer the unifier from 3100 B.C. (king menes), arguably the first "egyptian" as they came to be known as a unified state and it showed a very african appearance. then imhotep 2980 B.C. An ancient egytpian model army another model army Then I found a non-biased, non-afrocentric link on the race of ancient egyptians:http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html From a site that debunk myths about AE's (such as who built the pyramids) And to top it all off, the discovery channel recently did a series of documentaries on the AE's, of whom which were depicted as mostly intermediate-looking. Even though you have become something of my archenemy alexandrian, I do listen to your points and give them credence if they make enough sense. However I have come to the conclusion, that the egyptians were what you might call "black" in earlier periods, progressively becoming more "asianized" as the centuries wore on. In the end, both our views are more or less "correct" depending on what period you are talking about and if you call intermediate africans "black" or not. It is clear the ancient egyptians were not "pure black" , but your point of view is no more credible to say they were mostly west-asian or looked west-asian, which is just not true. dsc.discovery.com/convergence/nefertiti/video/video.htmlNefertiti Tutankhamen
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 17, 2005 15:40:56 GMT -5
this thread here will never end ... ;D
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 17, 2005 17:25:12 GMT -5
Kame, you've earned my respect. I just want to say that you and I both know there were both black and white types living in Egypt. Which race was more abundant and when I cannot say with a great deal of certainty. There is evidence for the presence of both races. The problem I have is with the idea that the Egyptians mixed like crazy with all the peoples who invaded their land throughout its long history. That's certainly possible (and has been brought up before to no end), but I've seen no serious, in-depth studies on the matter.
One thing I am not willing to concede to however is that the Afro-Asiatic language family or the Hamites who brought the family with them have their roots in black Africa. That is a matter of opinion, I know, and it depends on who and what evidence one is more inclined to believe. I always make my decisions on the preponderance of the evidence, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 17, 2005 18:29:09 GMT -5
Alexandrian, so far as I know, his father was president of Ghana and his mother is Egyptian! So he is not a "non-Egyptian black", but half-Egyptian mulatto! This is his mother Fathia Nkrumah: weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/499/profile.htmHmm... I didn't know that. Pretty interesting.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 17, 2005 18:35:35 GMT -5
Believe it or not, I was actually starting to believe alexandrians arguments recently, (because I am willing to concede defeat and change my view) but then after some thinking and a little research, I started to doubt. For instance, Alexandrian says he is a copt or descended from coptic egyptians, whom he says are true egyptians. As if they are the true indicator of ancient egyptian ancestry, and attributes their west asian looks to how the AE's looked. I thought about it, at first it made sense, but then I thought about the succesive invasions by west asians into egypt over the centuries. By the time the christians reached egypt, it had already been conquered by 5 non-african nations! First the hyskos, assyrians, persians, greeks and the romans and later after the christian period by the arabs. then I looked at the bust of narmer the unifier from 3100 B.C. (king menes), arguably the first "egyptian" as they came to be known as a unified state and it showed a very african appearance. then imhotep 2980 B.C. An ancient egytpian model army another model army Then I found a non-biased, non-afrocentric link on the race of ancient egyptians:http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html From a site that debunk myths about AE's (such as who built the pyramids) And to top it all off, the discovery channel recently did a series of documentaries on the AE's, of whom which were depicted as mostly intermediate-looking. Even though you have become something of my archenemy alexandrian, I do listen to your points and give them credence if they make enough sense. However I have come to the conclusion, that the egyptians were what you might call "black" in earlier periods, progressively becoming more "asianized" as the centuries wore on. In the end, both our views are more or less "correct" depending on what period you are talking about and if you call intermediate africans "black" or not. It is clear the ancient egyptians were not "pure black" , but your point of view is no more credible to say they were mostly west-asian or looked west-asian, which is just not true. dsc.discovery.com/convergence/nefertiti/video/video.htmlNefertiti Tutankhamen I must admit Kame, you have gained much of my respect through your last point. I understand your argument, and I agree with some points of it. I do know that Egyptians mixed with Asiatic invaders, however we probably differ on the extent of that mixing. I also agree there were black and white types living in Egypt and that Egypt wasn't pure one way or another. We might disagree on which type was more "prevalent" As for the pictures you provide, there are also quite a few representations of typically Caucasoid looking Egyptians. The bust of Imhotep you provide doesn't look very Negroid to me, so I don't understand where you're going with that. As for the bust of Menes, I was always under the belief that they have never found a depiction of Menes outside of the stele. I'll find some pics later and post them.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 17, 2005 19:00:53 GMT -5
Kame, Alexandrian I seriously thought I would never see the day you both gained alot of respect in my opinon right there.
|
|
|
Post by IfTheLightTakesUs on Mar 17, 2005 19:08:22 GMT -5
Eh? Striking similarity.
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Mar 17, 2005 19:25:51 GMT -5
Is that you? Hmmm, you don't see many west-asians with those features, thier noses are 95% of the time straight or hooked, but it is interesting. However due to the high likelihood of blacks for those features as oppossed to the lower likelihood of west-asians to carry them, and using occams razor, I'd put a safe bet that Mr. Narmer was black.
|
|
|
Post by KLI on Mar 17, 2005 19:29:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by IfTheLightTakesUs on Mar 17, 2005 20:26:12 GMT -5
Is that you? Hmmm, you don't see many west-asians with those features, thier noses are 95% of the time straight or hooked, but it is interesting. However due to the high likelihood of blacks for those features as oppossed to the lower likelihood of west-asians to carry them, and using occams razor, I'd put a safe bet that Mr. Narmer was black. Thank god that isn't me, flat noses are hideous. Who cares about this bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 17, 2005 21:06:47 GMT -5
Eh? Striking similarity. Exactly, statues don't tell the whole story. If Asians had made head busts of themselves, they would probably be classified as blacks based on their flat noses. The kid in question certainly isn't predominantly Negroid
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 17, 2005 21:28:14 GMT -5
Here are some pics: Reserve Head of Senefru-Seneb, a member of Khufu's family Scribe Statue of Padiamenopet, son of Menkhast STanding Statue of Nefer Seated Scribe As for the supposed "reconstructions" of Tutankhamen and Nefertiti, they both have significant problems and I'll tell you why. 1. In the case of Tutankhamen, the person who did that reconstruction did not have Tut's mummy or head available to him. He had to use some type of replica or bust or something. The reason being that the only time in recent history Tut's mummy was taken out of his coffin for xrays was just a few weeks ago when it was done by the Supreme Council of Antiquities. Also keep in mind that King Tut's parental lineage is unknown and he almost certainly had some Nubian blood. Furthermore, the darkness of King Tut is exaggerated because the Egyptians used resin on the body, which would make it appear darker. Also, I do believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that resin was applied more recently when the mummy was damaged being taken out of its tomb in 1922. The increased resin makes it seem darker than it really is, even to an xray. The Supreme Council of Antiquities recently commissioned an xray of Tut's skull and this is what they came up with. His mummy, some detectable negroid presence however the nose is much longer than the reconstruction makes it seem and it certainly isn't as broad. Lips seem thinner too It looks different, head looks longer than reconstruction 2. With Nefertiti, the mummy was never confirmed to be hers. Joanne Fletcher made an unsubstantiated claim and was suspended from working in Egypt for a year as a result. furthermore, the resin played a role here too. Take out the melanin, and she certainly has Caucasian features. Keep in mind she too had Nubian blood, though not so substantial. Furthermore, it's not even known if its her mummy and how the recontrsuction was done. Here are the two results of the ONLY reconstructions supported and aided by Egypt's SCA in co-operation with National Geographic. Ramesses II Amun-her Khepeshef
|
|
Kame
Full Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by Kame on Mar 17, 2005 22:40:33 GMT -5
Here are some pics: Reserve Head of Senefru-Seneb, a member of Khufu's family Scribe Statue of Padiamenopet, son of Menkhast STanding Statue of Nefer Seated Scribe As for the supposed "reconstructions" of Tutankhamen and Nefertiti, they both have significant problems and I'll tell you why. 1. In the case of Tutankhamen, the person who did that reconstruction did not have Tut's mummy or head available to him. He had to use some type of replica or bust or something. The reason being that the only time in recent history Tut's mummy was taken out of his coffin for xrays was just a few weeks ago when it was done by the Supreme Council of Antiquities. Also keep in mind that King Tut's parental lineage is unknown and he almost certainly had some Nubian blood. Furthermore, the darkness of King Tut is exaggerated because the Egyptians used resin on the body, which would make it appear darker. Also, I do believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that resin was applied more recently when the mummy was damaged being taken out of its tomb in 1922. The increased resin makes it seem darker than it really is, even to an xray. The Supreme Council of Antiquities recently commissioned an xray of Tut's skull and this is what they came up with. His mummy, some detectable negroid presence however the nose is much longer than the reconstruction makes it seem and it certainly isn't as broad. Lips seem thinner too It looks different, head looks longer than reconstruction 2. With Nefertiti, the mummy was never confirmed to be hers. Joanne Fletcher made an unsubstantiated claim and was suspended from working in Egypt for a year as a result. furthermore, the resin played a role here too. Take out the melanin, and she certainly has Caucasian features. Keep in mind she too had Nubian blood, though not so substantial. Furthermore, it's not even known if its her mummy and how the recontrsuction was done. Here are the two results of the ONLY reconstructions supported and aided by Egypt's SCA in co-operation with National Geographic. Ramesses II Amun-her Khepeshef For nefertiti, they used the head of a mummified person they found, and forensic scientists reconstructed her (or its) face as they would anybody for today, using modern, highly accurate techniqes. Even if the mummy is'nt nefertiti, not only does the reconstruction look similar to her, she could be a representive of the egyptian population by-and-large. As for the statues, just curious, what period did they come from? I now egypt has always more-or-less had a significant west-asian population, especially in lower-egypt, but even more so in the later centuries. P.S. That is one ugly dude at the end.
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Mar 25, 2005 2:13:03 GMT -5
btw, you really think Hoda Kotb looks black? She doesn't look black to me.The african-american is crazy if he thinks she looks black.
|
|