|
Post by Buddyryvall on Mar 18, 2005 5:26:25 GMT -5
My source link says he could be of part Nubian ancestry. he could very well be fully Nubian but the info given says there is no proof of this. Like most Egyptologists do, he was labelled Nubian because of his obvious looks and hair Yeah, the hair is a wig according to your source: "Maihirpre's mummy measures 5 feet, 4.75 inches and his skin is dark brown. Daressy believed that this skin color is not the result of chemical reactions with the embalming materials, and most writers contend the Maihirpre was at least part Nubian. The curly hair which is so visibly prominent on the mummy's head would initially seem to confirm Maihirpre's Nubian ancestry, but is in fact a very realistic wig glued securely in place over his shaven scalp."www.geocities.com/royalmummies/Maihirpre/Maihirpre.htm Apart from the hair(wig) the face doesnt look negroid at all, maybe the mummy was Egyptian. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 18, 2005 6:34:29 GMT -5
Yeah, the hair is a wig according to your source: "Maihirpre's mummy measures 5 feet, 4.75 inches and his skin is dark brown. Daressy believed that this skin color is not the result of chemical reactions with the embalming materials, and most writers contend the Maihirpre was at least part Nubian. The curly hair which is so visibly prominent on the mummy's head would initially seem to confirm Maihirpre's Nubian ancestry, but is in fact a very realistic wig glued securely in place over his shaven scalp."www.geocities.com/royalmummies/Maihirpre/Maihirpre.htm Apart from the hair(wig) the face doesnt look negroid at all, maybe the mummy was Egyptian. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) That mummy does look black, what do you expect a Zimbabwean looking person thats dead? Did you read all of that information, especially about his skin coloring? You're in denial, I notice alot of people here have a stereotypical image of what a black person is suppose to look like, but I'm not engaging it. That mummy doesn't come close to looking European nor Eurasian and what about the others I posted?
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Mar 18, 2005 6:39:34 GMT -5
You forgot to mention the giants and the cyclops. Also, everybody knows the Egyptians actually came from Atlantis and were a colony of the Lost Continent of Mu. Yes, I'm kidding. I wish he was... First of all, humanity did not descend from the Negroid race. Esoteric knowledge points not only to: (a) that cro-magnon was created by extra-terrestrials, but (b), that different alien groups may have been responsible for each of the different races - evidently evolution continued from then on. Secondly, Visigoths were present in North Africa until their defeat by Byzantine forces during Justinian's ill-fated attempt to reclaim the fallen Western Roman Empire. Thus, Visigoths are the ancient Aegyptians. Nordic name Aege = Aegypt. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) Napoleon, another Nordic leader conquered Egypt, and Rommel nearly accomplished the same thing. Overall, Egypt was dominated by the British, which are Nordic due to the influx of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norse, and of course, the remnants of Troy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Mar 18, 2005 6:53:28 GMT -5
I agree that Africans are very diverse. But although you'll find, for instance, Nordic looking people in any southern European country, you will not find any Amharic Ethiopians who look West African. Also, Ethiopians and other Africans are distinct because of admixture with other races (Bushmen, Berbers, Arabs, and so on) which is different from subracial divergence. Following your example, Swedes and Spaniards aren't different because any ofthe two is mixed with another race, but because they, although members of the same race, evolved on different places with different clymates. And not long enough ago to become different races, genetically speaking. Also, you said yourself, Africa has the greatest diversity in the world, much more than Europe. That's why an Ethiopian and a Nigerian can't really be considered as members of the same race. They're much further apart than, for instance, a Swede and a Spaniard. Why is it with african groups they are separate races but with europeans they are still "white" or "caucosoid"?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Mar 18, 2005 11:25:02 GMT -5
<<on Mar 13th, 2005, 3:42pm, A.U.C.T.O.R.I.T.A.S. wrote:First of all, humanity did not descend from the Negroid race. Esoteric knowledge points not only to: (a) that cro-magnon was created by extra-terrestrials, but (b), that different alien groups may have been responsible for each of the different races - evidently evolution continued from then on.
Secondly, Visigoths were present in North Africa until their defeat by Byzantine forces during Justinian's ill-fated attempt to reclaim the fallen Western Roman Empire. Thus, Visigoths are the ancient Aegyptians. Nordic name Aege = Aegypt.
Napoleon, another Nordic leader conquered Egypt, and Rommel nearly accomplished the same thing. Overall, Egypt was dominated by the British, which are Nordic due to the influx of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norse, and of course, the remnants of Troy. >>
Thats that biggest pile of shit i have heard in along time.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 18, 2005 16:31:14 GMT -5
My source link says he could be of part Nubian ancestry. he could very well be fully Nubian but the info given says there is no proof of this. Like most Egyptologists do, he was labelled Nubian because of his obvious looks and hair, but there are Upper Egyptians who look like that. THere is no Egyptologist conspiracy. Mummies are labelled Nubian if their features and skin color do not coincide with the other Egyptian mummies. Mummies are only labelled Nubian if they do not look like the average Egyptian mummy.
|
|
|
Post by Dissident88 on Mar 18, 2005 19:00:42 GMT -5
I would very much like to know what the truth of this matter is. I do remember that Nordicists received quite a bit of heat regarding the Tocharians before those findings were widely publicized, as people said that it was just fraudulent information regarding the White mummies of China. I have looked around, and it seems that Stormfront is by no means alone on the subject of Nordic types in ancient Egypt. The following is just a small example: www.egyptorigins.com/ginger.htmhere is a quote: In 1975 the Egyptian government asked French scientists to attempt preservation of the mummy of Ramesses. It was shipped to Paris where the work was done. This event offered an opportunity for forensic examination to determine his age, body condition, health, diet, and so on. One area of major interest was his racial affinities. The Senegalese scholar Cheikh Anta Diop was claiming that Ramesses was black. After the work was complete the mummy was returned in a hermetically sealed casket, and it has remained hidden from public view ever since, concealed in the bowels of the Cairo Museum. The results of the study were published in a lavishly illustrated work, edited by L. Balout, C. Roubet and C. Desroches-Noblecourt, and titled La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie (1985). Professor P. F. Ceccaldi, with a research team, studied some hairs from the mummy's scalp. Ramesses II was 87 years-old when he died, and his hair had turned white. Ceccaldi determined that the reddish-yellow color of the hair was due to a dye with a dilute henna solution. As we saw earlier, many Egyptians dyed their hair, and this personal habit was preserved by the embalmers. However, traces of the hair's original color remained in the roots. Microscopic examinations showed that the hair roots contained natural red pigments, and that therefore, during his younger days, Ramesses II had been a red head. Analysis concluded that these red pigments did not result from the hair somehow fading, or otherwise being altered after death, but did represent Ramesses' natural hair color. Ceccaldi also studied the cross-section of the hairs, and determined from their oval shape, that Ramesses had been "cymotrich" (wavy-haired). Finally, he stated that such a combination of features showed that Ramesses had been a "leucoderm" (white-skinned person). Refer to the above report. ![](http://www.egyptorigins.com/ramesses.jpg) The fact of red-headed Egyptians has not only anthropological interest however, but also great symbolic importance. In ancient Egypt, the god Seth was said to have been red-haired, and redheads were claimed to have worshipped the god devoutly. See G. A. Wainwright, The Sky-Religion in Egypt: Its Antiquity and Effects, Cambridge University Press, 1938, pgs 31, 33, 53. In the Ramesses study by the French, the Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt discussed the importance of Ramesses' rufous condition. She noted that the Ramessides (the family of Ramesses II), were devoted to Seth, with several bearing the name Seti, which means "beloved of Seth". She concluded that the Ramessides believed themselves to be divine descendants of Seth, with their red hair as proof of their lineage. She speculated that Ramesses II may have been descended from a long line of redheads. Her speculations have been proved correct: Joann Fletcher, as a consultant to the British Bioanthropology Foundation, has proved that Seti I, the father of Ramesses II, had red hair. See L. Parks, "Ancient Egyptians Wore Wigs," Egypt Revealed, May 29, 2000. Other investigators have demonstrated that the mummy of Pharaoh Siptah, a great-grandson of Ramesses II, had red hair. See my reference to Partridge above.
|
|
|
Post by Dissident88 on Mar 18, 2005 19:26:09 GMT -5
In defense of Stormfront, if the BBC hadn't aired their piece on the Tocharian mummies, half the lemmings on here would still be "throwing rocks" at them for claiming such things, and displaying "obviously fake" photos.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 18, 2005 19:31:11 GMT -5
In defense of Stormfront, if the BBC hadn't aired their piece on the Tocharian mummies, half the lemmings on here would still be "throwing rocks" at them for claiming such things, and displaying "obviously fake" photos. Not I. I would have expected them to look something like Scythians and would have been surprised if they didn't look Nordic. The presence of absorbed Nordics in Turkestan would explain the blondness of some Turanids.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Mar 18, 2005 19:37:47 GMT -5
these mummies didnt know they would become so much stuff for analysis and discussions thousands of thousands of years later... ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by Dissident88 on Mar 18, 2005 20:05:29 GMT -5
these mummies didnt know they would become so much stuff for analysis and discussions thousands of thousands of years later... ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) hehe, actually as per their conservation, they thought they would be revered and worshiped thousands of years later. SO just discussing them would be an upseting and depressing thing for them. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 19, 2005 1:52:04 GMT -5
THere is no Egyptologist conspiracy. Mummies are labelled Nubian if their features and skin color do not coincide with the other Egyptian mummies. Mummies are only labelled Nubian if they do not look like the average Egyptian mummy. What do you mean by the 'average' Egyptian mummy? That mummy could just as well be Egyptian, Upper Egyptians during the predynastic and dynadtic period were morphological similar to Nubians. Ancient Egyptians varied so there was no 'average' Egyptian mummy. Some people call 'Nubian' any black figure or face found in ancient Egypt out of ignorance for the actual racial composition of the population.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 19, 2005 2:00:16 GMT -5
What do you mean by the 'average' Egyptian mummy? That mummy could just as well be Egyptian, Upper Egyptians during the predynastic and dynadtic period were morphological similar to Nubians. Ancient Egyptians varied so there was no 'average' Egyptian mummy. Some people call 'Nubian' any black figure or face found in ancient Egypt out of ignorance for the actual racial composition of the population. I doubt practiced and licensed Egyptologists are as ignorant as you Afrocentrists. Here's what you seem to miss: People who are professional Egyptologists and work for organizations like the Supreme Council of Antiquties know what their doing. THey label something Nubian when it is foreign from other mummies they have found. If all the mummies they found had the same features, they would classify them all as Egyptian, however they find different mummies, and ones that look altogether different from the Egyptian population are called foreign. These foreign mummies are then divided into their country of origin based on features etc. If Upper Egyptians and Nubians looked alike (which they clearly didn't according to actual ancient Egyptian depictions) then all Nubian mummies would be grouped with Upper egyptians. However, that clearly doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 19, 2005 2:31:38 GMT -5
I doubt practiced and licensed Egyptologists are as ignorant as you Afrocentrists. Don't label me as anything. You've shown more ignorance than anyone here wuth your claims. I have no particular affiliation with any ideology. Anthropological and genetic studies do confurm predynastic and and early dynastic Upper Egyptians were in fact closer to Nubians and East Africans. There were not tons of Nubian mummies in Egypt, however, as I've stated earlier in my post, Upper Egyptians were somatically closer to Nubians, there was no racial or morphological barrier between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. "Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 19, 2005 22:33:33 GMT -5
To assume that ancient Upper Egyptians were somehow closer to Ancient East Africans than to their own Lower Egyptian compatriots is ridiculous. Shomarka Keita is a known Afrocentrist. To try to source him as if he were some sort of credible, unbiased source is manipulative. He is just another person of West African descent trying to find a connection to ancient Egypt, so desperate to find one he's even willing to make things up and take things out of context.
|
|