James Westerman
I.A.Blease
read, not only will I make a formal complaint, but if it proves to be a
libel, I will consult my legal representatives.
ADR
I.A.Blease wrote in message <37D7D544...@durham.ac.uk>...
>If James Westerman makes any further remarks of the type I have just
>read, not only will I make a formal complaint, but if it proves to be a
>libel, I will consult my legal representatives.
What? That racist nonsense about 'negroids'?
James Westerman
I'm sorry if I caused any offence.
If people are bothered by what I said, then I take it all back.
I didn't realise that using the word Negroid was racist. I am not a racist,
I know the pain discrimination can cause.
Nor did I realise that the content of my postings would cause someone to
consider legal action. For that I am also sorry.
I was wrong to allow a minor indiscretion to blow up to something this big.
so, its with this apology to all those that have been offended, that I say
goodbye to this NG.
Regards
James.
ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7r93tj$n4b$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
Florian Eichhorn
I guess ADR was a bit kidding. What really looks like something for
the courts is *this* one
:
From The Post About Ancient Boats.
Date:
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:35:29 +0100
What I was saying was not just another of my theories.
it was shown on the television, and was supported by many experts
all over
(snip)
Finally to mr iablease, I don't think it would be right to insult
each other
in this Ng, because this is not what it is meant for. but I will do
it if I
need to. so shall we take this outside so to speak, into another ng more
suitable? or do you want to stay here.
*I'd like to remind you that you have more to lose. but I'm sure you enjoy
abusing minors regularly so I wouldn't like too put you off a habit
of a
lifetime.*
Regards
James
With my humble respect, which sort of alc made You nuts when posting
such stuff?
Regards
F
--
Microsoft Linux is here:
http://davix.latesky.net/apoc/mslinux/index.html
Meet Zippy the pinhead daily:
http://www.sfgate.com/sf/zippy/
Spencer Thayer
lot in the Mismeasure Of Man. I only know that cause I am reading it right
now, but never the less I've seen it before in various scientific books.
Unless he was using the word in some sort of derogatory manner I don't see
what is wrong with it. But hey, that's just me.
--
s p e n c e r t h a y e r
http://www.f28.com/
ICQ: 2715949 / IM: losXaos
James Westerman <Ja...@westerman79.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7rb7a0$vep$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Spencer Thayer
Lord Jon Ray
someone who really needs to check themselves, and their low self-confident
level.
You are ONLY what you allow yourself to become.. anything else is a lazy
bastard just looking for an excuss for having no life of their own, or
perhap..
a very boring misguided one.....
LJR
ianab...@my-deja.com
"ADR" <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> I.A.Blease wrote in message <37D7D544...@durham.ac.uk>...
> >If James Westerman makes any further remarks of the type I have just
> >read, not only will I make a formal complaint, but if it proves to
be a
> >libel, I will consult my legal representatives.
>
> What? That racist nonsense about 'negroids'?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ADR
ianab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rdr4b$8o2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>You are not funny, you know fine well what Westerman wrote.
He is not to blame. He only quoted somebody elses racism.
ameno...@my-deja.com
"James Westerman" <Ja...@westerman79.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Hey!
> I'm sorry if I caused any offence.
> If people are bothered by what I said, then I take it all back.
> I didn't realise that using the word Negroid was racist. I am not a
> racist, I know the pain discrimination can cause.
**
**Fear not!!! This newsgroup is no different than any other, you have
some people who will be offended, period. You can't please them all, but
don't fall into the trap of being silent because of the few cry-babies
who can't take what you post. Forget them, and I say this kindly - but
you know what I mean!
To think I had a punk-ass sucker on here called SMILEY who had the gall
to post my place of employment in hopes that I would "be quiet" and not
hurt his little pride. Fuck that and him!!! People like that are pure
cowards and immature maggots. Oh, I'm sorry, did I get carried away...
:-)
But my point is, please don't go anywhere because of the few who don't
like what you post. For those of us with an open-mind have reason to
want to hear what you have to say...and thank you!
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
amen...@my-deja.com
Z
people. The peoples from the delta were more Mediterranean than black but
the further south you went, the more Negroid they became.
Frats
Z
--
"Oh Great Computer, are you not a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciseronicus XII the magic and
indefatigable?". "The Great Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler could talk all
four legs off an Arcturian Mega Donkey but only I could persuade it to go
for a walk afterwards!" - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy. A Trilogy in Five parts.
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7rhhfo$kup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
ADR
Z wrote in message <7rjj1c$snh$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>I'm sorry to inform you that the Ancient Egyptians were not just black
>people. The peoples from the delta were more Mediterranean than black but
>the further south you went, the more Negroid they became.
>
Negroid? How about their physical body types? They differ quite a lot
between the people you call Negroid.
Z
ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7rjl0l$bc2$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
ADR
Z wrote in message <7rjneg$54u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Once again taken out of context. I said MORE NEGROID not Negroid.
Not good enough. You should have said 'more darker skinned due to hotter
climate'.
Saural Mekstone
and Mongoloid all are scientific catagorizations to describe the
apparant physical differences between major physical types
around the world. They DO NOT refer to skin color. For instance
the aboriginal peoples of Australia are considered Caucazoids,
yet they tend to have vary dark skin. The catagorizations have
fallen out of favor because they are so nebulous. They are attempts
to understand the obvious physical differences between different
peoples and are not intended to denote racial bigotry. However,
these designations were developed at a time of rampant racial
bigotry in the west, so this may be the origin of disfavor of these
terms.
These catagorizations do fail to adequetely describe the very
complex study of racial differences. For instance, American
Indians are considered Mongoloid, but there is controversy
about this. Some believe Amerinds represent a separate
catagory, with the confusion stemming from the mixing of the
Mongoloids and Amerinds in Northern China before the crossing
of the Amerinds into North America. Who knows? A half million (?)
years of racial mixing makes the whole study pretty subjective.
Of course, nothing can stop a racist from distorting the original
intent to fit their own perverse logic. But, please, don't let
ignorance of any flavor prevent you from contributing to as you
see fit.
Please, carry on. BUT HAVE FUN!
Incidently, the threat of legal action is entirely bluster and
bravado and would be quite impossible to carry out!
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:17:38 +0100, "James Westerman"
<Ja...@westerman79.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Hey!
>I'm sorry if I caused any offence.
>If people are bothered by what I said, then I take it all back.
>I didn't realise that using the word Negroid was racist. I am not a racist,
>I know the pain discrimination can cause.
>Nor did I realise that the content of my postings would cause someone to
>consider legal action. For that I am also sorry.
>I was wrong to allow a minor indiscretion to blow up to something this big.
>so, its with this apology to all those that have been offended, that I say
>goodbye to this NG.
>Regards
>James.
>
>
>ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:7r93tj$n4b$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
Toivo Pedaste
>In case anyone should want to know, the terms Negroid, Caucazoid,
>and Mongoloid all are scientific catagorizations to describe the
>apparant physical differences between major physical types
>around the world. They DO NOT refer to skin color. For instance
>the aboriginal peoples of Australia are considered Caucazoids,
>yet they tend to have vary dark skin. The catagorizations have
>fallen out of favor because they are so nebulous. They are attempts
>to understand the obvious physical differences between different
>peoples and are not intended to denote racial bigotry. However,
>these designations were developed at a time of rampant racial
>bigotry in the west, so this may be the origin of disfavor of these
>terms.
I think they've fallen out of favour because they don't particularly
match reality, the Australian Aborigines are an obvious case of
a people that don't fit any of the three groups. Genetic studies
indicate relationships are quite complex and don't fit the above
division, for example the people of north Asia are close to
Europeans than to the people of south Asia.
I suspect the idea of a three fold division comes from the three
sons of Noah.
--
Toivo Pedaste Email: to...@ucs.uwa.edu.au
University Computing Services, Phone: +61 8 9 380 2605
University of Western Australia Fax: +61 8 9 380 1109
"The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things"...
Spencer Thayer
the only people to have developed red hair? If so was this due to the
isolation of the isles?
--
s p e n c e r t h a y e r
http://www.f28.com/
ICQ: 2715949 / IM: losXaos
Toivo Pedaste <to...@eleusis.ucs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7rmvn8$jnm$1...@eleusis.ucs.uwa.edu.au...
ADR
Spencer Thayer wrote in message ...
>Completely off topic well sort of anyway, but are the Irish and the
Scottish
>the only people to have developed red hair? If so was this due to the
>isolation of the isles?
What are you on about? Red hair is simply a mutation of brown hair. Red
headed people can be seen in Afghanistan, Tibet, Nepal, northern India and
Turkmenistan as well. It has little to do with isolation.
Spencer Thayer
--
s p e n c e r t h a y e r
http://www.f28.com/
ICQ: 2715949 / IM: losXaos
ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7ro889$qdf$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
ameno...@my-deja.com
"Z" <z...@NOSPAMmegadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> Once again taken out of context. I said MORE NEGROID not Negroid.
>
> ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:7rjl0l$bc2$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >
> Z wrote in message <7rjj1c$snh$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> I'm sorry to inform you that the Ancient Egyptians were not just black
> people. The peoples from the delta were more Mediterranean than black
> but the further south you went, the more Negroid they became.
**
**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people. But they most
certainly were the MAJORITY - and also the original people who populated
the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
most all of their stone representations.
The assertion of a diverse population in the Ancient Egyptians
population simply WAS NOT depicted in the hieroglyphs, although there
are a (few) exceptions to the rule.
I hate to inform you, but the peoples from the delta and the
Mediterranean included people who had dark colored skin, so what is your
point? When you state the people were more "Mediterranean," please, tell
us who and what they looked like. Whatever you do, be careful and know
the migration patterns of people before getting ahead of yourself...
> >Negroid? How about their physical body types? They differ quite a lot
> >between the people you call Negroid.
**
**Negroid most certainly describes part of the ancient Egyptian
population! While claiming a diverse population in ancient Egyptian,
don't leave out the darker subjects from the South. Surely you've ran
across them somewhere throughout the many depictions of the ancient
Egyptians. They too, held the throne - the ancient Nubians comes to
mind, surely they were considered Negroid.
When describing the ancient Egyptians - AFRICAN would be more
appropriate. I don't want to get into another long debate about this
issue as it is very old. However, the ancient Egyptians were described
by ancient authors, philosophers, scholars alike - and the ancient
Egyptians were described as people with "burnt skin and woolly hair".
This places them in the category of being Black people. Hence, the Black
peoples of Africa who lived in Kemet (Egypt).
But I disagree that the ancient Egyptians differed "quite a lot". I
don't think so.
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
Tim Haines
:-)
(Once again) Didn't Ramses have red hair?
ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote in message
Katherine Griffis
<t...@pennyblack.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>If you will forgive me for going back to the subject of Ancient Egypt......
>:-)
>
>(Once again) Didn't Ramses have red hair?
Not necessarily. Some years ago, the mummy of Ramses II was conserved
against deteriotation due to humidty and bacterial deteriotation by a
team of internertaional scientists and Egyptologists. During the
project, this gave them an opportunity to study the hair of Ramses II.
This is their report:
"Ramses Ild mummy’s hair is confined to a temporo-occipital
zone which corresponds to an advanced stage of
baldness.
Hairs are slightly crimped and show an oval cross-section, the
great axis of which lies between 60 and 70 urn : they are specific of
<« a cymotrich leucoderm >>. [1]
The sample which was investigated comprised identical percentages
of fully depigmented and pigmented hairs, the overall
colour being a light fair red with some tendency towards
yellow.
Although the microscope examination was able to show strong
evidence of red pigments, no evidence of possible <(fair »
pigments was obtained : the latter might be present as a « diffuse b>
component which could be masked by a faint yellow dye (probably
arising from dilute « Henna >> or one if its derivatives). [2]
The examination of pieces of hairs fallen from the mummy’s
head gave some explanations to the conspicuous fragility shown
by the samples during handling.
Some abrasion of the cuticle, probably present during
Ramses Ild’s life. was also noticed.
Physico-chemical aggressions, during Ramses Ild’s life, have
led to the disappearance of part of the cuticular sheet. which is
known to play a protective action on the corticex of the hair ; as a
consequence, the latter was modified to a more « spongious ‘> and
<< porous >> state : that lead to a slow but very efficient oxidation Of
cystinic bonds. This oxidation could explain the strength losses
and was confirmed by amino-acid analysis."
[1] literally, a 'wavy-haired' person with 'white skin.' However, if
they meant someone who suffered from leukoderma, which is possible, then
leukoderma is defined as "partial or total loss of skin pigmentation,
often occurring in patches. Also called vitiligo or tetter: defined as
any of various skin diseases, such as eczema, psoriasis, or herpes,
characterized by eruptions and itching."
[2] In essence, elements of red hair were found in the mummy's hair,
but evidence of _fair_ hair was not present, or masked by the use of
henna. Pheomelanin [FR: phaeomélanine] is the element that makes up red
hair, which was found during the electron microscopic examination.
However, as many know, pheomelanin can also be found in persons with
dark brown or even balck hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue.
Within the body of the work, a slightly more detailed information was
give (translated from the French):
"...Under the microscope, there were hairs of two colors : 1) redhead
and pigmented; 2) white and completely depigmented, but also
colored in sallow by a dye. The fact that the white hairs have
under the microscope a sallow hue, it was noted that one used the
dilute dye. While reasoning by analogy, one is right to think that
the pigmented hairs have been submitted them also to the coloration
that, if [the hair] was only light, could have tampered pigments of
origin strongly, whom appears redhead...
The hypothesis that hairs of Ramses were of a redhead clear, and maybe
same redhead blond (Venice fair?) seems therefore most likely... If the
microscopic exam permitted to recover with an almost redhead pigment
certainty, it is not in the same way of the possible fraction blond
pigmentaire, which could exist to the diffuse state, but would be
concealed by a pale yellow dye (probably of the dilute henna either one
of its derivative[s]."
This is from the report of the
Katherine Griffis
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:42:45 +0100, "Tim Haines"
<t...@pennyblack.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>If you will forgive me for going back to the subject of Ancient Egypt......
>:-)
>
>(Once again) Didn't Ramses have red hair?
It seems that way, but there are questions about whether it is a
significant finding. It is true that pheomelanin was found in the hair,
which is one of the elements which make up red hair, brown hair, and
even black hair.
Some years ago, the mummy of Ramses II was conserved against
deteriotation due to humidty and bacterial deteriotation by a team of
internertaional scientists and Egyptologists. During the project, this
gave them an opportunity to study the hair of Ramses II. This is their
report, this portion of the report being in English:
dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue.
Within the body of the work, a slightly more detailed information was
give (translated from the French):
"...Under the microscope, there were hairs of two colors : 1) redhead
and pigmented; 2) white and completely depigmented, but also
colored in sallow by a dye. The fact that the white hairs have
under the microscope a sallow hue, it was noted that one used the
dilute dye. While reasoning by analogy, one is right to think that
the pigmented hairs have been submitted them also to the coloration
that, if [the hair] was only light, could have tampered pigments of
origin strongly, whom appears redhead...
The hypothesis that hairs of Ramses were of a redhead clear, and maybe
same redhead blond (Venice fair?) seems therefore most likely... If the
microscopic exam permitted to recover with certainty an almost redhead
pigment, it is not in the same way of the possible fraction blond
pigmentation, which could exist in the diffuse state, but would be
concealed by a pale yellow dye (probably of the diluted henna [or]
either one of its derivative[s]."
The above is from the report of the the Laboratory of the Judiciary
Identification (National Police), who concluded (also translated from
the French):
"It was not possible to recover on the die-hard-thin cuts of the
very particular morphologies characterizing pigments of hairs
redhead. Nevertheless, observations to the electronic microscope to
sweep suggest a certain analogy between hairs of Ramsès II and the
present redhead hairs. Results in MEB perfectly confirm those
gotten by the laboratory of L'oréal."
When queried by me (as the L'Oreal report is not present in the work), I
received the following information from them (translated from the
French):
"The optic microscopy permitted to determine the redhead hue of
pigments. Their morphology in electronic microscopy is compatible with
the one of the pigments of pheomelanin. All results are in the book
that you mention. "
The full report of the hair analysis of the mummy can be found in _La
momie de Ramses II: Contribution scientifique à l'égyptologique_,
Lionel, Balout; Roubert, C., Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, (Paris,
1985).
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
Netjert
>
> In article <7rjneg$54u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Z" <z...@NOSPAMmegadodopublishing.com> wrote:
>
> > Once again taken out of context. I said MORE NEGROID not Negroid.
> >
> > >
> > Z wrote in message <7rjj1c$snh$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > I'm sorry to inform you that the Ancient Egyptians were not just black
> > people. The peoples from the delta were more Mediterranean than black
> > but the further south you went, the more Negroid they became.
> **
> **I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people. But they most
> certainly were the MAJORITY - and also the original people who populated
> the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
> neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
> most all of their stone representations.
Actually, it was standard to portray the Egyptian women with yellow
skin, while the men where shown with reddish-brown skin tones. The
"braided hairstyle" you speak of were also wigs, not necessarily their
natural hair. I'm not saying that didn't have "wooly" hair, just that
you would have rarely SEEN their wooly hair! :)
My personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were of mixed race all
throughout their history. To me, Queen Tiye looks very Negroid (or
sub-Saharan African, whichever term you prefer) and Queen Nefertiti
looks Caucasian. (This is based on the famous busts of both women) These
women were only one generation apart. I see examples of various races
and racial features in the sculptures from all periods of Egyptian
history.
But anyways, that is just my persoanl opinion, and I'm not trolling for
a debate by saying so...
April
--
Netjert (Net...@NOSPAM.ixpres.com)
Ancient Egypt: the Mythology (http://www.ixpres.com/netjert/)
"When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my
religion." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN
ameno...@my-deja.com
Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
> ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>**
>**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people.But they most
>certainly were the MAJORITY -and also the original people who populated
>the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
>neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
>most all of their stone representations.
>
> Actually, it was standard to portray the Egyptian women with yellow
> skin, while the men where shown with reddish-brown skin tones. The
> "braided hairstyle" you speak of were also wigs, not necessarily their
> natural hair. I'm not saying that didn't have "wooly" hair, just that
> you would have rarely SEEN their wooly hair! :)
**
**Actually, it was more standard to portray the ancient Egyptian women
as various colors, including jet-black. Don't leave out all the rest of
the colors they were portrayed as, and the majority of women were
depicted with brown and black skin. And let's not kid yourself, yellow
would be the same any light-skinned African women (i.e. Sade, Halle
Barry, Vanessa Williams - all African American women who would also be
considered 'yellow').
As far as the assertion of the "wigs"...I'm sorry, but African people or
rather, the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water. It's stupid.
Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
In my opinion, it was the "foreigners" (i.e. Assyrians, Persians,
Romans, etc.) who had to wear these wigs, hence, the "few" wigs found
and not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence the ancients wore
them. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to try and prove
these people were not Black.
>My personal opinion is the ancient Egyptians were of mixed race all
>throughout their history. To me, Queen Tiye looks very Negroid (or
>sub-Saharan African, whichever term you prefer) and Queen Nefertiti
>looks Caucasian.(This is based on the famous busts of both women) These
>women were only one generation apart. I see examples of various races
>and racial features in the sculptures from all periods of Egyptian
>history.
>
>But anyways, that is just my persoanl opinion, and I'm not trolling for
>a debate by saying so...
**
**Me neither, but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt. The people
depicted in the MAJORITY of the hieroglyphics were portrayed with braids
(their original hair braided, see Queen Ashayt of Nubia depicted sitting
on a throne while someone is braiding her natural hair, NOT a wig! (This
is so silly). Besides that, the majority of people also wore a brown
toned skin. They weren't "red" people.
Funny you would compare a model bust of Nefertiti and think everyone
else looked like her when in fact the majority of people in the stones
look NOTHING like her. Interesting. But when you look at the stone
representation, voila, she looks more African than Kunta Kente. You get
the drift.
>
> April
>
> --
> Netjert (Net...@NOSPAM.ixpres.com)
> Ancient Egypt: the Mythology (http://www.ixpres.com/netjert/)
> "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my
> religion." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN
**
**AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
**ameno...@my-deja.com
"To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather.
To die for the people, is heavier than any mountain,
and deeper than any sea." - HUEY P. NEWTON
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- AMENOPHIS X
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Katherine Griffis
>In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
>> Actually, it was standard to portray the Egyptian women with yellow
>> skin, while the men where shown with reddish-brown skin tones. The
>> "braided hairstyle" you speak of were also wigs, not necessarily their
>> natural hair. I'm not saying that didn't have "wooly" hair, just that
>> you would have rarely SEEN their wooly hair! :)
<snip>
>As far as the assertion of the "wigs"...I'm sorry, but African people or
>rather, the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
>wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
>any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
>off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water. It's stupid.
>Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
>the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
As has been covered before with Stephen, but here's the short list of
evidence he refuses to acknowledge:
Georges Posener, "La legende de la tresse d'Hathor", _Egyptological
Studies in Honor of R.A. Parker_ (L.H. Lesko, ed.), (Hanover and London,
1986), p. 111-117.
A. Lucas, "Ancient Egyptian Wigs", ASAE 30 (1930), pp. 190-196.
E. Eisa, "A Study on Ancient Egyptian Wigs," ASAE 48 (1948), pp 9-18.
J. Cox, "Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 BC) in the
British Museum," JEA 63 (1977), pp. 67 ff.
E. Riefstahl, "An Ancient Egyptian Hairdresser," BBM 13, pt 4, (1952),
pp. 7-16.
_The Tomb of Meryet-Amun at Thebes_, Herbert Winlock (New York, 1932).
_Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_, 4th ed., A. Lucas (rev. by
J. Harris), (London, 1962).
_Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558 - 1085
BC_, Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1982), "Wigs and Accessories",
pp. 196 - 199.
_Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
ameno...@my-deja.com
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:08:22 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> >Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
>
> Actually, it was standard to portray the Egyptian women with yellow
> skin, while the men where shown with reddish-brown skin tones. The
>"braided hairstyle" you speak of were also wigs, not necessarily their
> natural hair. I'm not saying that didn't have "wooly" hair, just that
> you would have rarely SEEN their wooly hair! :)
>
> <snip>
>As far as the assertion of the "wigs"..I'm sorry, but African people or
>rather,the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
>wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
>any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
>off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water.It's stupid.
>Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
>the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
>
> As has been covered before with Stephen, but here's the short list of
> evidence he refuses to acknowledge:
>
> Georges Posener, "La legende de la tresse d'Hathor", _Egyptological
> Studies in Honor of R.A. Parker_(L.H. Lesko, ed.),(Hanover and London,
> 1986), p. 111-117.
>
> A. Lucas, "Ancient Egyptian Wigs", ASAE 30 (1930), pp. 190-196.
>
> E. Eisa, "A Study on Ancient Egyptian Wigs," ASAE 48 (1948), pp 9-18.
>
> J. Cox, "Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 BC) in the
> British Museum," JEA 63 (1977), pp. 67 ff.
>
> E. Riefstahl, "An Ancient Egyptian Hairdresser,"BBM 13, pt 4, (1952),
> pp. 7-16.
>
> _The Tomb of Meryet-Amun at Thebes_, Herbert Winlock (New York, 1932).
>
>_Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_, 4th ed., A. Lucas (rev. by
> J. Harris), (London, 1962).
>
>_Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558 - 1085
>BC_, Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1982), "Wigs and Accessories",
>pp. 196 - 199.
>
>_Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
>York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
>
> Regards --
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**In the future, please use my name I use on this forum. If you don't,
you'll be flamed to the extent a fire extinguisher won't be able to put
it out! If you've noticed, I have a name that I post with. Get it right.
As far as your 'supposed' evidence, where is it? You've only provided
sources of reference without citing their points for us to further
research. I told you before, I'm not into any wild goose chase. If your
points are worthy of further research, then sure, I'll consider them.
But until then, don't just provide the name of the books, if you
actually even read them all, but provide some of the points also,
Egyptologist.
And I'll repeat here:
As far as the assertion of the "wigs"...I'm sorry, but African people or
rather,the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water. It's stupid.
Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
In my opinion, it was the "foreigners" (i.e. Assyrians, Persians,
Romans, etc.)who had to wear these wigs, hence, the "few" wigs found and
not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence the ancients wore them.
This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to try and prove these
people were not Black.
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
smiley
[garbage...]
> but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
> Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt.
Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent, and
seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
--
:-)
Z
wigs. If you looks at the statue of Rahotep (Sneferu's son) and his wife
Nofret you will see quite clearly that Nofret is infact wearing a wig. If
you also look at this statue you will not fail to note that Nofret is infact
white. Also, look at the statues of Hemienu and Ankha (both sons of
Sneferu), although not painted, you will find that these statues bear
practically no resemblance to black people whatsoever. Most women were
depicted as white and men were depicted as black skinned
I'm sorry to dash your opinions like this but the Egyptians were not a pure
black race they were most certainly a very mixed race. The peoples of lower
Egypt were Mediterranean in appearance but the further south you travelled,
the more Negroid they became.
Frats
Z
--
"Oh Great Computer, are you not a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciseronicus XII the magic and
indefatigable?". "The Great Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler could talk all
four legs off an Arcturian Mega Donkey but only I could persuade it to go
for a walk afterwards!" - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy. A Trilogy in Five parts.
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7semeg$69v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
>
> > ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >**
> >**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people.But they most
> >certainly were the MAJORITY -and also the original people who populated
> >the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
> >neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
> >most all of their stone representations.
> >
> > Actually, it was standard to portray the Egyptian women with yellow
> > skin, while the men where shown with reddish-brown skin tones. The
> > "braided hairstyle" you speak of were also wigs, not necessarily their
> > natural hair. I'm not saying that didn't have "wooly" hair, just that
> > you would have rarely SEEN their wooly hair! :)
> **
> **Actually, it was more standard to portray the ancient Egyptian women
> as various colors, including jet-black. Don't leave out all the rest of
> the colors they were portrayed as, and the majority of women were
> depicted with brown and black skin. And let's not kid yourself, yellow
> would be the same any light-skinned African women (i.e. Sade, Halle
> Barry, Vanessa Williams - all African American women who would also be
> considered 'yellow').
>
> As far as the assertion of the "wigs"...I'm sorry, but African people or
> rather, the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
> wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
> any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
> off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water. It's stupid.
> Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
> the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
>
> In my opinion, it was the "foreigners" (i.e. Assyrians, Persians,
> Romans, etc.) who had to wear these wigs, hence, the "few" wigs found
> and not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence the ancients wore
> them. This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to try and prove
> these people were not Black.
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
> Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
> - AMENOPHIS X
ameno...@my-deja.com
"Z" <z...@NOSPAMmegadodopublishing.com> wrote:
I'm afraid Mr Amenophis you are quite wrong. The Ancient Egyptians DID
wear wigs. If you looks at the statue of Rahotep (Sneferu's son) and his
wife Nofret you will see quite clearly that Nofret is infact wearing a
wig. If you also look at this statue you will not fail to note that
Nofret is infact white. Also, look at the statues of Hemienu and Ankha
(both sons of Sneferu), although not painted, you will find that these
statues bear practically no resemblance to black people whatsoever. Most
women were depicted as white and men were depicted as black skinned.
**
**Of course there were some ancient Egyptians who wore wigs, the hyskos
& other foreigners probably did. They would be the only souls on "that
continent" who would NEED to wear a wig to imitate or pretend to be like
the original inhabitants represented in the stones. The original
inhabitants braided their hair for various reasons such as how easy it
is to manage, keeps the head cool in the HEAT, promotes hair growth, and
a host of other reasons. Besides that, why haven't the mummies that are
found aren't found with these "wigs" on??? :-)
As far as the statues you ask me to look at, I'm not in Egypt to look at
them first-hand but if you're referring to some book, by all means,
provide the title and author.
Your assertion of "most women were depicted as...white, and, the men
were depicted as black skinned means they were inter-breeding and
produced the most highly sophisticated society mankind has come to know.
Boy, the racist surely will be furious when they hear this one. They
claim, society looses it all when inter-mixing of the races occur. :-)
Not only that, but the assertion that "most" were white...and the other
"most" black skinned is simply incorrect.
>I'm sorry to dash your opinions like this but the Egyptians were not a
pure black race they were most certainly a very mixed race. The peoples
of lower Egypt were Mediterranean in appearance but the further south
you travelled, the more Negroid they became.
>
> Frats
>
> Z
**
**Frats, how well did you do in school...I mean - as far as paying
attention? Well, if you read my first paragraph below, that's exactly
what I said...(please see comments from my original post below)
Furthermore, the migration patterns of the people on the African
continent were from the South - North, NOT from out-of-Africa (North) -
South. Africa was civilized BEFORE Europe woke up.
I also disagree the further south you travelled, the more Negroid they
became. That may be true to a 'certain extent' with various tribes but
not all African people look the same, i.e. "Negroid" as some of us still
describe African people, 2000 A.D.
> In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
> >
>ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>**
>**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people.But they most
>certainly were the MAJORITY-and also the original people who populated
>the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
>neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
>most all of their stone representations.
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelly <sti...@hotmail.com> barked:
(Ruff-Ruff):
> amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> [opinion...]
> > but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
> > Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt.
> [opinion...]
>
>Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent,
**
**You must be drunk. This is hardly recent. And it goes way back to the
days of George G.M. James "Stolen Legacy" in 1954 who taught about the
acclaim and theft of Greek culture and Europeans who have tried in vain
to deny the history of the dark skinned people, and claim it as their
own. Can you say: Stolen Legacy?
and
>seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
>fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
>
> --
> :-)
**
**Like you would know "anything" about 'Black Revisionism'. The only
reason I'm paying YOU the 'slightest bit of attention' right now is
because I have absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G else to do. NOT!
"To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather.
To die for the people, is heavier than any mountain,
and deeper than any sea." - HUEY P. NEWTON
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- AMENOPHIS X
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
--
:-}
Z
kindly words that you don't see to often in NG's these days.
Secondly, the examples I quoted you were from the Time of Sneferu (Dyn. IV -
Old Kingdom) which was way before the Hyksos, if you go to www.amazon.com
there are an interesting set of video's (two of them) entitled "The Great
Egyptians" this is where you will find all the evidence you need.
Thirdly, I hope that you are not implying that I am racist!!!.
Fourthly, you may disagree with my statements about racial trends in Upper
and Lower Egypt but I'm afraid that the trend still exists today. The
majority peoples of Luxor (Wast) and southern Egypt are very definitely
Black whereas the majority of the peoples of the North are without doubt
Mediterranean.
Here is a link that
http://www.us.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/culture/html/life001.htm shows Rahotep and
Nofret which will show: -
A) She is wearing a wig
B) They bear little resemblance to Black peoples
C) Classic Husband/Wife pose as in she is depicted as white skinned and he
is depicted as dark skinned.
Once again Frats, or Fraternal Greeting if you will.
Z
--
"Oh Great Computer, are you not a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciseronicus XII the magic and
indefatigable?". "The Great Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler could talk all
four legs off an Arcturian Mega Donkey but only I could persuade it to go
for a walk afterwards!" - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy. A Trilogy in Five parts.
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7shdo0$54q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7sger0$kgg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Z" <z...@NOSPAMmegadodopublishing.com> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid Mr Amenophis you are quite wrong. The Ancient Egyptians DID
> wear wigs. If you looks at the statue of Rahotep (Sneferu's son) and his
> wife Nofret you will see quite clearly that Nofret is infact wearing a
> wig. If you also look at this statue you will not fail to note that
> Nofret is infact white. Also, look at the statues of Hemienu and Ankha
> (both sons of Sneferu), although not painted, you will find that these
> statues bear practically no resemblance to black people whatsoever. Most
> women were depicted as white and men were depicted as black skinned.
> **
> **Of course there were some ancient Egyptians who wore wigs, the hyskos
> & other foreigners probably did. They would be the only souls on "that
> continent" who would NEED to wear a wig to imitate or pretend to be like
> the original inhabitants represented in the stones. The original
> inhabitants braided their hair for various reasons such as how easy it
> is to manage, keeps the head cool in the HEAT, promotes hair growth, and
> a host of other reasons. Besides that, why haven't the mummies that are
> found aren't found with these "wigs" on??? :-)
>
> As far as the statues you ask me to look at, I'm not in Egypt to look at
> them first-hand but if you're referring to some book, by all means,
> provide the title and author.
>
> Your assertion of "most women were depicted as...white, and, the men
> were depicted as black skinned means they were inter-breeding and
> produced the most highly sophisticated society mankind has come to know.
> Boy, the racist surely will be furious when they hear this one. They
> claim, society looses it all when inter-mixing of the races occur. :-)
>
> Not only that, but the assertion that "most" were white...and the other
> "most" black skinned is simply incorrect.
>
> >I'm sorry to dash your opinions like this but the Egyptians were not a
> pure black race they were most certainly a very mixed race. The peoples
> of lower Egypt were Mediterranean in appearance but the further south
> you travelled, the more Negroid they became.
> >
> > Frats
> >
> > Z
> **
> **Frats, how well did you do in school...I mean - as far as paying
> attention? Well, if you read my first paragraph below, that's exactly
> what I said...(please see comments from my original post below)
>
> Furthermore, the migration patterns of the people on the African
> continent were from the South - North, NOT from out-of-Africa (North) -
> South. Africa was civilized BEFORE Europe woke up.
>
> I also disagree the further south you travelled, the more Negroid they
> became. That may be true to a 'certain extent' with various tribes but
> not all African people look the same, i.e. "Negroid" as some of us still
> describe African people, 2000 A.D.
>
> > In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> > Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
> > >
> >ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >**
> >**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people.But they most
> >certainly were the MAJORITY-and also the original people who populated
> >the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
> >neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
> >most all of their stone representations.
>
> AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
smiley
[afrocentric junk deleted]
Amenophixs, how well did you do in school...I mean - as far as paying
attention?
Now pay attention, I'll say it one more time.
Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent, and
seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
Egyptians are and were ALWAYS Egyptians!
--
:-)
smiley
> **Frats,
Frats eh! Hahahaha....
--
:-)
Dewy,Cheatem,and,Howe
Wigs were worn for ceremonial purposes and to protect the scalp from the
blistering sun.
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7semeg$69v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37E7A8...@ixpres.com>,
> Net...@ixpres.com wrote:
>
> > ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >**
> >**I know the Ancient Egyptians were not just Black people.But they most
> >certainly were the MAJORITY -and also the original people who populated
> >the Northern region of the African continent we all know as EGYPT. They
> >neither left out their dark skin tone nor their braided hairstyle in
> >most all of their stone representations.
> >
> **AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
> **ameno...@my-deja.com
ameno...@my-deja.com
"Dewy,Cheatem,and,Howe" <must...@flashcom.net> wrote:
>Was it not customary to shave one's head for relief from the summer
heat? Wigs were worn for ceremonial purposes and to protect the scalp
from the blistering sun.
**
**No, it is not customary to shave one's head for relief from the summer
heat. Sure, that very well "could" be used as a possibility if one was
trying to evade the ideal conclusion...the ancient Egyptians simply had
their own hair braided, which is natural for Black people. As I have
stated before, it is in the stones that show a queen sitting upon
her throne getting her hair braided.
Furthermore, where are all the wigs to be found on the mummies dug up
from the grave robbers, er "excavators"...if you will? Where are all the
wigs as evidence??? Don't just show me one here, one there, show me the
money!!! :-)
I'll REPEAT:
>As far as the assertion of the "wigs"..I'm sorry, but African people or
>rather, the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
>wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
>any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
>off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water.It's stupid.
>Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
>the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
> >
> >In my opinion, it was the "foreigners" (i.e. Assyrians, Persians,
> >Romans, etc.) who had to wear these wigs, hence, the "few" wigs found
> >and not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence the ancients wore
> >them.This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to try and prove
> >these people were not Black.
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
"Z" <z...@NOSPAMmegadodopublishing.com> wrote:
> Firstly Amenophis "Frats" is short for "Fraternal Greetings" you know,
> kindly words that you don't see to often in NG's these days.
**
**Kindly words have never been a part of any of these newsgroups, never.
I've never ran across a NG yet that is as civilized as this one...
>Secondly, the examples I quoted you were from the Time of Sneferu (Dyn.
IV - Old Kingdom) which was way before the Hyksos, if you go to
www.amazon.com there are an interesting set of video's (two of them)
entitled "The Great Egyptians" this is where you will find all the
evidence you need.
**
**I highly doubt I'll find 'all the evidence' I need looking at a couple
of modern day videos, however, I will visit the site and check out the
video's out of curiousity.
> Thirdly, I hope that you are not implying that I am racist!!!.
**
**I would simply (call you a racist) if necessary, I wouldn't imply it.
That's too easy anyway. Besides, my remarks about the racists simply
implied how mad "they" would be to find out how highly sophisticated
they became from inter-mixing. Now, if you fit into this category, but
if the shoe fits - wear it!
>Fourthly, you may disagree with my statements about racial trends in
Upper and Lower Egypt but I'm afraid that the trend still exists today.
The majority peoples of Luxor (Wast) and southern Egypt are very
definitely Black whereas the majority of the peoples of the North are
without doubt Mediterranean.
**
**Please, comparing TODAY to thousands of years ago regarding the
migrations of people is impossible. Thousands of years ago, we're
talking about a majority of Africans who once existed in ancient times.
What does a European know of this when EUROPE was asleep? The migrations
that have taken place a long time ago surely are not the same ones
today...that argument doesn't make sense. Study the migrations...
> Here is a link that
http://www.us.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/culture/html/life001.htm shows
Rahotep and Nofret which will show: -
>
> A) She is wearing a wig
**
**She wears a wig, but that doesn't speak of the entire population.
> B) They bear little resemblance to Black peoples
**
**Foreigners usually do.
> C) Classic Husband/Wife pose as in she is depicted as white skinned
> and he is depicted as dark skinned.
>
> Once again Frats, or Fraternal Greeting if you will.
>
> Z
**
**I checked out the URL you provided and (LOL) as soon as I saw the
picture. Sure, I've seen this one (1) before. If you noticed, everything
about that statue looks foreign. Look at her head-band which is plain
and simple, exactly the opposite artistry and talent of the real ancient
Egyptians. This statue is used most by those asserting a mixed society
or a white civilization and that statue by itself - just won't work.
Like I said, foreign owned...
You never answered my question:
1.) Besides that, why haven't the mummies that are found aren't found
with these "wigs" on???
"To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather.
Katherine Griffis
>In article <37eae447...@news.mindspring.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 02:08:22 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>>As far as the assertion of the "wigs"..I'm sorry, but African people or
>>rather,the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
>>wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
>>any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
>>off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water.It's stupid.
>>Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
>>the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
>>
>> As has been covered before with Stephen, but here's the short list of
>> evidence he refuses to acknowledge:
>>
>> Georges Posener, "La legende de la tresse d'Hathor", _Egyptological
>> Studies in Honor of R.A. Parker_(L.H. Lesko, ed.),(Hanover and London,
>> 1986), p. 111-117.
>>
>> A. Lucas, "Ancient Egyptian Wigs", ASAE 30 (1930), pp. 190-196.
>>
>> E. Eisa, "A Study on Ancient Egyptian Wigs," ASAE 48 (1948), pp 9-18.
>>
>> J. Cox, "Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 BC) in the
>> British Museum," JEA 63 (1977), pp. 67 ff.
>>
>> E. Riefstahl, "An Ancient Egyptian Hairdresser,"BBM 13, pt 4, (1952),
>> pp. 7-16.
>>
>> _The Tomb of Meryet-Amun at Thebes_, Herbert Winlock (New York, 1932).
>>
>>_Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_, 4th ed., A. Lucas (rev. by
>> J. Harris), (London, 1962).
>>
>>_Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558 - 1085
>>BC_, Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1982), "Wigs and Accessories",
>>pp. 196 - 199.
>>
>>_Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
>>York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
>**
>**In the future, please use my name I use on this forum. If you don't,
>you'll be flamed to the extent a fire extinguisher won't be able to put
>it out! If you've noticed, I have a name that I post with. Get it right.
Actually, I have always considered a sign of respect to call someone by
their correct legal name, as opposed to a web nom de plume, but YMMV.
>As far as your 'supposed' evidence, where is it? You've only provided
>sources of reference without citing their points for us to further
>research. I told you before, I'm not into any wild goose chase.
As far as what you are "into," I hasten to note you have claimed
yourself as a scholar in the field and one who has "done his homework."
Most scholars of my acquaintance tend to look up references and do their
research, especially when given to them by direct citation. It is not
my job, sir, to do your research for you.
The evidence exists in all of the cited material, above, as to what is
known about wigs. If you choose to do the research and learn about it,
fine. If not, this indicates to me how serious you are about research
and "doing your homework."
>If your
>points are worthy of further research, then sure, I'll consider them.
>But until then, don't just provide the name of the books, if you
>actually even read them all, but provide some of the points also,
>Egyptologist.
While I seriously doubt you would believe anything written, I suppose it
would be in the best interest of other readers of this post to note
that evidence of wigs can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, where
they are observed on statuary of ancient Egyptians, male and female
(Erman noted two such examples in Berlin, being Berlin 7278 (a woman of
the New Kingdom) and a male (Berlin 2296) in his work _Life in Ancient
Egypt_ (Dover: New York, 1971 (rept of 1894 edition)). This is a
widely accessible work, FWIW. He has a rather extensive description of
wigs and hairpieces from all periods of Egyptian history on pp. 219-226,
for example, with illustrations and examples of wigs.
>And I'll repeat here:
>
>As far as the assertion of the "wigs"...I'm sorry, but African people or
>rather,the majority of African people can braid their NATural hair. We
>wear this hairstyle, naturally, without using wigs. This assertion by
>any Egyptologist and especially the Egyptology field, will be laughed
>off the planet earth. This will not hold an ounce of water. It's stupid.
>Where is all the evidence? You can't convince a sane person that "all"
>the Egyptians wore wigs. :-)
>
>In my opinion, it was the "foreigners" (i.e. Assyrians, Persians,
>Romans, etc.)who had to wear these wigs, hence, the "few" wigs found and
>not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence the ancients wore them.
>This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard to try and prove these
>people were not Black.
Since actual wigs and hairpieces are attested as far back as predynastic
times (Lucas _Materials and Industries_: 31), I think you would be very
hard-pressed to find many people who would agree with you there is no
evidence that wigs and artificial hair were worn by the ancient
Egyptians during all periods.
Biri Fay, in her comments on New Kingdom wigs alone, noted that we have
full examples of wigs in the process or production, wig-making
instruments, and production facilities as found in the late 1970's at
Deir el Bahri, a community of craftsmen and artisans.
Biri Fay noted in her introduction on wigs in Egypt's Golden Age_ that
"It is likely that every Egyptian nobleman and noblewoman owned at
least one [wig], and wigs are often included in tombs as part of the
equipment for a successful afterlife." ["Wigs and Hair Accessories", p.
196, showing British Museum [BM 2560] from the 18th Dynasty, which is a
wig consisting of a mass of light-colored curls on top of darker
braids].
She described the wig-making process of BM 2560 as follows
"To make the wig, a foundation of tightly plaited hair was woven into a
mesh with rhomboidal openings. About 300 strands of hair were used for
the wig, with each strand consisting of about 400 hairs. Each strand
was anchored by first dipping it into a mixture of warm beeswax and
resin, and then looping it over the mesh matrix. Then a bit of the
strand was sectioned off and used to wrap around the looped-over area.
The hardened wax served as a glue and held the curls in place." (p.
196).
As for the "few" examples, Lucas himself notes that he tested all the
wigs in the British Museum alone, which numbered 15 from various
periods. There are other examples in museums around the world.
Katherine Griffis
<must...@flashcom.net> wrote:
>Was it not customary to shave one's head for relief from the summer heat?
>Wigs were worn for ceremonial purposes and to protect the scalp from the
>blistering sun.
The heat was only one of several reasons fors cutting the hair short.
Head lice seems to have been a chronic problem as well, and evidence of
these lice are found in the remains quite often. Ritual purity and
cleanliness are other reasons.
Wigs served as a form of "air conditioning" in which the padding
absorbed perspiration and acted as a coolant when air passed through the
wig. They also served as fashion statements and ritual dress (many of
the British Museum's collection of wigs came from the tomb of priests,
for example).
Regards --
ameno...@my-deja.com
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> >As has been covered before with Stephen, but here's the short list of
> >evidence he refuses to acknowledge:
> >
> >Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558 - 1085
> >BC_, Boston Museum of Fine Arts(Boston, 1982), "Wigs andAccessories",
> >pp. 196 - 199.
> >>
> >Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
> York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
> **
> **In the future, please use my name I use on this forum. If you don't,
>you'll be flamed to the extent a fire extinguisher won't be able to put
>it out! If you've noticed,I have a name that I post with. Get it right.
>
>Actually, I have always considered a sign of respect to call someone by
>their correct legal name, as opposed to a web nom de plume, but YMMV.
**
**Whatever your reason, I've always used my "web nom de plume" but YOU
have refused to use it. I don't recall ever telling you to call me by
any other name - legal, correct, or otherwise.
> >As far as your 'supposed' evidence, where is it? You've only provided
> >sources of reference without citing their points for us to further
> >research. I told you before, I'm not into any wild goose chase.
>
>As far as what you are "into," I hasten to note you have claimed
>yourself as a scholar in the field and one who has "done his homework."
>Most scholars of my acquaintance tend to lookup references and do their
>research, especially when given to them by direct citation. It is not
>my job, sir, to do your research for you.
**
**Does your 'train of thought' have a caboose? :-|
I simply asked you to provide (more) information that would give anyone
a reason why he/she should take your word for it. All information is
questionable on the internet, and surely you've noticed where I have
posted, I always cite the references that give other readers a reason to
research further or go buy the book(s) if they so choose.
As a matter of fact, Katherine, I distinctly remember you asking me to
give you a "direct quote" from some information I posted some time ago
when I gave you a reference WHERE to find the information yourself...it
is not my job (either) to do your research for you! And its this type of
'evading-games' you like playing...
>The evidence exists in all of the cited material, above, as to what is
>known about wigs. If you choose to do the research and learn about it,
>fine. If not, this indicates to me how serious you are about research
>and "doing your homework."
**
**This indicates what YOU want it to! If anything, it would surely
indicate how (NOT) interested I am in researching information about
wigs.
Furthermore, your evidence DOES NOT conclude the African people
portrayed in the bas-reliefs, (ALL) wore wigs. If it does, I don't want
you to do the research for me, I simply want you to provide the book and
page number, and leave the rest to me. When I said I'm not going on a
wild goose chase, that's what I meant.
> >If your
> >points are worthy of further research, then sure, I'll consider them.
> >But until then, don't just provide the name of the books, if you
> >actually even read them all, but provide some of the points also,
> >Egyptologist.
>
>While I seriously doubt you would believe anything written,I suppose it
>would be in the best interest of other readers of this post to note
>that evidence of wigs can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, where
>they are observed on statuary of ancient Egyptians, male and female
>(Erman noted two such examples in Berlin, being Berlin 7278 (a woman of
>the New Kingdom) and a male (Berlin 2296) in his work _Life in Ancient
>Egypt_ (Dover: New York, 1971 (rept of 1894 edition)). This is a
>widely accessible work, FWIW.
**
**Yea, worth two! Erman may have "noted" two (2) such examples in Berlin
but that is HARDLY scientific evidence.
Sure, "evidence of wigs" can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, but
HARDLY evidence the ancient fathers who ruled KMT/Egypt, wore them.
However----->there is<-----(evidence) WRITTEN IN STONE - depicting a
Queen of Egypt sitting on her throne, getting her hair braided. I would
much rather TRUST a story written in stone...over a "folktale". :-)
<snip>
>Since actual wigs and hairpieces are attested far back as predynastic
>times (Lucas _Materials and Industries_: 31), I think you would be very
>hard-pressed to find many people who would agree with you there is no
>evidence that wigs and artificial hair were worn by the ancient
>Egyptians during all periods.
**
**FOR THE LAST TIME: I'm sure wigs existed in ancient times and that
some ancient Egyptian people wore them, however, the people portrayed in
the stones ALL have braided hair, NORMAL/traditional hairstyle
characteristic to AFRICAN people.
You've worked hard to prove to the NG that "wigs" existed in ancient
times - and I applaud you. But you FAILED proving the ancient Egyptians
in the stones all wore them. There is No evidence of such non-sense, nor
is any substantial amount of the wigs found on the mummies heads, if
any. According to your reference below:
> Biri Fay noted in her introduction on wigs in Egypt's Golden Age_ that
>
> "It is likely that every Egyptian nobleman and noblewoman owned at
> least one [wig], and wigs are often included in tombs as part of the
> equipment for a successful afterlife."["Wigs and Hair Accessories", p.
> 196, showing British Museum from the 18th Dynasty, which is a
> wig consisting of a mass of light-colored curls on top of darker
> braids].
**
**Where are the wigs to be found in the tombs as "part of the equipment
for a successful afterlife" as the quote says? Where's the beef, er,
wigs? Furthermore, the discription of the wig consisting of a mass of
light-colored curls on top of darker braids sounds just like the wig I
once saw at the Egyptian Museum. It looked like a cheap dirty wig with a
bad-braid job. Hardly what the ancient Egyptians would glorify
themselves wearing in the stones...your argument just stinks!
> She described the wig-making process of BM 2560 as follows
>
>"To make the wig, a foundation of tightly plaited hair has woven into a
> mesh with rhomboidal openings.About 300 strands of hair were used for
> the wig, with each strand consisting of about 400 hairs. Each strand
> was anchored by first dipping it into a mixture of warm beeswax and
> resin, and then looping it over the mesh matrix. Then a bit of the
> strand was sectioned off and used to wrap around the looped-over area.
> The hardened wax served as a glue and held the curls in place." (p.
> 196).
**
**Yep, and they wore these wigs in the HOT sun!!! :-))
Good grief Katherine, surely you don't believe this garbage??? I'm
laughing my head off...wait...I can't...I can't...breath! BWHAAAAA...
HAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHAH.......
> As for the "few" examples, Lucas himself notes that he tested all the
> wigs in the British Museum alone, which numbered 15 from various
> periods. There are other examples in museums around the world.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**Oh, 15 more??? Wow! Evidence that wigs existed - you're point?
smiley
[garbage sniped]
Good grief amenophixs, surely you don't believe this garbage??? I'm
laughing my head off...wait...I can't...I can't...breath! BWHAAAAA...
HAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHAH.......
--
:-)
Katherine Griffis
>In article <37ef22a7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>
>> >As has been covered before with Stephen, but here's the short list of
>> >evidence he refuses to acknowledge:
>>>Georges Posener, "La legende de la tresse d'Hathor", _Egyptological
>>>Studies in Honor of R.A. Parker_ (L.H. Lesko, ed.), (Hanover and London,
>>>1986), p. 111-117.
>>>
>>>A. Lucas, "Ancient Egyptian Wigs", ASAE 30 (1930), pp. 190-196.
>>>
>>>E. Eisa, "A Study on Ancient Egyptian Wigs," ASAE 48 (1948), pp 9-18.
>>>
>>>J. Cox, "Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 BC) in the
>>>British Museum," JEA 63 (1977), pp. 67 ff.
>>>
>>>E. Riefstahl, "An Ancient Egyptian Hairdresser," BBM 13, pt 4, (1952),
>>>pp. 7-16.
>>>
>>>_The Tomb of Meryet-Amun at Thebes_, Herbert Winlock (New York, 1932).
>>>
>>>_Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_, 4th ed., A. Lucas (rev. by
>>>J. Harris), (London, 1962).
>>>
>>>_Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558 - 1085
>>>BC_, Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1982), "Wigs and Accessories",
>>>pp. 196 - 199.
>>>
>>>_Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
>>>York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
<snip >
>I simply asked you to provide (more) information that would give anyone
>a reason why he/she should take your word for it. All information is
>questionable on the internet, and surely you've noticed where I have
>posted, I always cite the references that give other readers a reason to
>research further or go buy the book(s) if they so choose.
Look at the list above. These are the "(more) information" you asked me
to provide. I did so. You then asked for a summary of the points. I
did so, referencing my statements as I went, and giving you, where
applicable, direct quotes. Now, it is incumbent upon you to
"...research further or go buy the book(s) if [you] so choose..." The
fact that you have not read these items, and do not wish to, says (to
me) a great deal about your credibility as one who does any appreciable
research.
>As a matter of fact, Katherine, I distinctly remember you asking me to
>give you a "direct quote" from some information I posted some time ago
>when I gave you a reference WHERE to find the information yourself...it
>is not my job (either) to do your research for you! And its this type of
>'evading-games' you like playing...
How brief your memory must be, then. I have given you both, both prior
and here. In addition to this thread, you were given the information
and quotes you asked for as follows:
In Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 09 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3786d686...@news.mindspring.com>
you were given a visual example and quote from the Official Catalogue of
the Cairo Museum (1987). It is, in fact, a reference to the Kawit
toilet scene in the Cairo Museum, discussed below.
in Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 05 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37830a51...@news.mindspring.com>
you were cited every example of wigs worn by the queen Nefertiti, given
examples and quote from the catalogue for _Through Ancient Eyes:
Egyptian Portraiture_ , Donald Spanel (Birmingham Museum of
Art/Birmingham, 1988)], and from Biri Fay, in _Egypt's Golden Age: The
Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558-1085 B.C._, Boston: Museum of
Fine Arts. (1982).
and
Subject: Re: LAND OF THE GODS - PWENET (Punt)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3793b024...@news.mindspring.com>
in which you were given the list of referenced books and articles, cited
above.
Asked and answered. You have now been given the cited references at
least twice, but I see (from your reaction below) that you have no
intention of studying the issue, but merely to adhere to your own
ill-informed beliefs of _what you see_ (ie, subjective and inductive
reasoning) -- which is, of course, your _choice_, but does not pass for
"research," IMO.
>>The evidence exists in all of the cited material, above, as to what is
>>known about wigs. If you choose to do the research and learn about it,
>>fine. If not, this indicates to me how serious you are about research
>>and "doing your homework."
>**
>**This indicates what YOU want it to! If anything, it would surely
>indicate how (NOT) interested I am in researching information about
>wigs.
Truer words have never been spoken by you, I believe. Nice of you to
admit that you actually have no intention of seriously researching the
matter. This does tend to make me question your ability to "do your
homework," though.
>Furthermore, your evidence DOES NOT conclude the African people
>portrayed in the bas-reliefs, (ALL) wore wigs. If it does, I don't want
>you to do the research for me, I simply want you to provide the book and
>page number, and leave the rest to me. When I said I'm not going on a
>wild goose chase, that's what I meant.
As you know, you have been given all of this. I would say you have some
reading to do, then.
>>While I seriously doubt you would believe anything written,I suppose it
>>would be in the best interest of other readers of this post to note
>>that evidence of wigs can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, where
>>they are observed on statuary of ancient Egyptians, male and female
>>(Erman noted two such examples in Berlin, being Berlin 7278 (a woman of
>>the New Kingdom) and a male (Berlin 2296) in his work _Life in Ancient
>>Egypt_ (Dover: New York, 1971 (rept of 1894 edition)). This is a
>>widely accessible work, FWIW.
>**
>**Yea, worth two! Erman may have "noted" two (2) such examples in Berlin
>but that is HARDLY scientific evidence.
Yes, you ability to see what you wish to see shows quite clearly, as you
also clipped the statement that followed the above, which said:
"He has a rather extensive description of
wigs and hairpieces from all periods of Egyptian history on pp. 219-226,
for example, with illustrations and examples of wigs."
Now, what I mentioned Erman had noted were two distinct examples of Old
Kingdom wigs where the sculpture (read: _in stone_, as you like to put
it) shows where the _natural hair peeks out from under the wig_. No
more, no less.
Of course there are more examples (_in stone_) of presence of wig use,
and I have even pointed to distinct relief work in the Tomb of Queen
Meresankh III, in the Old Kingdom in Saqqara in a prior posts, which
shows both Meresankh III and her mother Hetepheres II are shown with
short-cropped red-blonde hair. Other examples on this mastaba tomb show
the younger queen wearing the long black tripartite wig, round valanced
wigs, and statuary of the two together showing Hetepheres II wearing
the block wig, with her hair protruding from beneath .
The most widely accessible imagery of these mastaba's content is in
Alberto Siliotti's _Guide to the Pyramids of Egypt_(Barnes and Noble,
New York, 1997), p. 79. The most complete work on the mastaba is _The
Mastaba of Queen Meresankh III_, by Dows Dunham and William Kelly
Simpson (Museum of Fine Arts:Boston, 1974). The source to images of the
freestanding statuary showing the wigs of the two women can be found in
_Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt_,
Anne Capel and Glenn Markoe (Hudson Hills Press: New York 1996), No. 37
[p. 103]
>Sure, "evidence of wigs" can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, but
>HARDLY evidence the ancient fathers who ruled KMT/Egypt, wore them.
There are several very good examples of rulers wearing wigs throughout
Egyptian history, beginning about the Middle Kingdom, and definitely by
the New Kingdom (prior to that, most royal males are shown wearing the
royal wig-cover, the nemes). However, even in the Old Kingdom, one can
see evidence of wig use quite clearly, where the female's hair protrudes
below a wig, as it does in the royal statuary I mentioned above for
Queen Meresankh, granddaughter of Khufu, and Hetepheres II, his
daughter. The best known royal example from the Old Kingdom that I can
recall offhand would be that of King Menekaure, fifth King of Dynasty 4,
with his wife Khasemerernebty II in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts,
where her hair protrudes from under her wig. This is an official royal
statue, BTW.
As for non-royal persons, No. 3a in the _Mistress of the House,
Mistress of Heaven_ (1996), shows a husband and wife (non royal) [MMA
48.111] from the OK with wigs, and the OK family statue of the dwarf
Seneb and his wife [Cairo JE 51280], shows her also with hair protruding
beneath her wig. As for males wearing wigs, the best example is that of
Ranefer, from the 5th Dynasty, [Cairo JE 10063/CG 19 and JE 10064/CG
18], two statues which shows the same person (Ranefer). One has
close-cropped hair and the other the wide-spreading short wig.
The Cairo pieces can be found in the _Official Catalogue of the Egyptian
Museum Cairo_, Mohamed Saleh and Hourig Suorouzian (Von Zabern: Mainz,
1987), as well as other publication. There are also many other examples
of statuary showing wigs over natural hair in the Cairo Catalogue, so I
commend it to you as one of the best references on the matter, along
with any catalogue from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
>However----->there is<-----(evidence) WRITTEN IN STONE - depicting a
>Queen of Egypt sitting on her throne, getting her hair braided. I would
>much rather TRUST a story written in stone...over a "folktale". :-)
You are referring to the toilet scene of Kawit [not a queen, BTW, but a
princess of the palace and a wife of Mentuhotep II in Dynasty 11; his
chief queen was Temet, who bore his heir, Mentuhotep III]. The scene is
from her sarcophagus [Cairo: JE47397], who is wearing the round valanced
wig, popular in both the Old and early Middle Kingdoms. As mentioned
before, this scene is also described as Kawit being attended by a
hairdresser "who with dainty fingers arranges the locks of her lady's
wig." _Official Catalogue of the Egyptian Museum Cairo_, Mohamed Saleh
and Hourig Suorouzian (Von Zabern: Mainz, 1987), commentary to No. 68b,
toilet scene from the sarcophagus.
>>Since actual wigs and hairpieces are attested far back as predynastic
>>times (Lucas _Materials and Industries_: 31), I think you would be very
>>hard-pressed to find many people who would agree with you there is no
>>evidence that wigs and artificial hair were worn by the ancient
>>Egyptians during all periods.
>**
>**FOR THE LAST TIME: I'm sure wigs existed in ancient times and that
>some ancient Egyptian people wore them, however, the people portrayed in
>the stones ALL have braided hair, NORMAL/traditional hairstyle
>characteristic to AFRICAN people.
That is your opinion, and not supported by the artifact evidence of the
wigs themselves found with the deceased [royal, elite and even
non-elite], wig-making facilities [which implied an industry for the
mass production of wigs for at least the elite and royal clientele], and
the evidence _in stone_ that the wigs are worn and such use was
widespread -- at least among the elite and royal, as referenced to you
by myself several time in previous posts and now. Most of these wigs
have been written about from actual examples, artistic representations,
and most have been classified with specific design names.
>You've worked hard to prove to the NG that "wigs" existed in ancient
>times - and I applaud you. But you FAILED proving the ancient Egyptians
>in the stones all wore them. There is No evidence of such non-sense, nor
>is any substantial amount of the wigs found on the mummies heads, if
>any.
I don't see that I have failed. No, what I see is more a matter that
_you_ refuse to acknowledge that such evidence exists, which I find not
the sign of a person who "does his homework," but of a person whose idea
of belief in a self-created idea is more important than his adherence to
fact and reality -- in short, a fanatic -- not a scholar or
researcher.
>> According to your reference below:
>
>> Biri Fay noted in her introduction on wigs in Egypt's Golden Age_ that
>>
>> "It is likely that every Egyptian nobleman and noblewoman owned at
>> least one [wig], and wigs are often included in tombs as part of the
>> equipment for a successful afterlife."["Wigs and Hair Accessories", p.
>> 196, showing British Museum from the 18th Dynasty, which is a
>> wig consisting of a mass of light-colored curls on top of darker
>> braids].
>**
>**Where are the wigs to be found in the tombs as "part of the equipment
>for a successful afterlife" as the quote says? Where's the beef, er,
>wigs? Furthermore, the discription of the wig consisting of a mass of
>light-colored curls on top of darker braids sounds just like the wig I
>once saw at the Egyptian Museum. It looked like a cheap dirty wig with a
>bad-braid job. Hardly what the ancient Egyptians would glorify
>themselves wearing in the stones...your argument just stinks!
Yes, this is definitely the argument of a scholar who "does his
homework." I see that you have seen an example of a similar wig in the
Cairo Museum. The reference I made above is to one of the 15 examples
in the British Museum. Yet, you would have had us believe you don't
know that wigs existed and were worn by the ancient Egyptians? I have
now shown you well-documented examples of wigs as shown _in stone_, as
you quaintly put it. That you continue to deny that such wig use exists
is, IMO, self-delusional.
So, research the information you have been given, "Amenophis X", all you
wish. You have citations and information to read, and a wide amount of
visual examples referenced, which you can find -- if you are inclined.
If not, then stop asking for evidence for which you have been amply
supplied.
<snip ad hominems>
smiley
<k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote:
> ... what I see is more a matter that
> _you_ refuse to acknowledge that such evidence exists, which I find not
> the sign of a person who "does his homework," but of a person whose idea
> of belief in a self-created idea is more important than his adherence to
> fact and reality -- in short, a fanatic -- not a scholar or
> researcher.
Hey amenophixsssssssssssssss, you should consider doing something about
these self-created ideas! Well put Katherine!
Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent, and
seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
--
:-)
Florian Eichhorn
ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <240919991055039026%thest...@hotmail.com>,
> smelly <sti...@hotmail.com> barked:
>
> (Ruff-Ruff):
> > amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> > [opinion...]
> > > but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
> > > Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt.
> > [opinion...]
> >
> >Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent,
> **
> **You must be drunk. This is hardly recent. And it goes way back to the
> days of George G.M. James "Stolen Legacy" in 1954 who taught about the
> acclaim and theft of Greek culture and Europeans who have tried in vain
> to deny the history of the dark skinned people, and claim it as their
> own. Can you say: Stolen Legacy?
Well, James book is undoubtless an early reference, but for what,
and undoubtless important, but why?
It was the first published try by a black historian (by education,
not someone who* likes history*), to claim a own black *meaningfull*
(classic times) heritage/tradition/past.
The merits as well as the limits/faults of this early reference have
been described in detail by Bernal in "Black Athena".
BTW a very usefull and thoughtfull written treatise by a trained
historian, not by some ideology guided person.
It is very well understood, that James today it is seen as an early
reference and of importance, and within some granted borders, this
is true.
But that pertains to the function and importance within something
like regaining a *black* consciousness within the civil rights
movements. And his call for other black people to *research* their past.
Perhaps it has some importance for a very special line of historical
research history, but by no means it is an important source for
egyptian history.
> >seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
> >fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
This seems not so far fetched.
BTW, there were *some* other cultures on the African continent, in
Nubia and south of the Sahara. Ever tasted?
But I guess, it is not so "sexy", romantic, so tremendously ancient,
popular, sellable... as the egypt stuff.
A final hint, just to remember a scientist like You) - ancient
egyptian plastics follow patterns and rules, for the
functions/status/job - the life ages - the sexes of an human object.
They are *not at all* meant to represent a real persons face/body.
Only hers/his attitude and function. These model lines for plastics
remained almost unchanged for the whole time. Even, when the
hellenistic influence was visible in other fields of art.
To take these depictions of age/function/tradition/status literally,
leads to nothing else, as misconceptions.
Regards
Florian Eichhorn
NB. Your harshreaction to Ms. Griffis literature list seems a hint
to me, that You are not at all accustomed to the methods of
historical science. - E
--
!Microsoft Linux! is here:
http://davix.latesky.net/apoc/mslinux/index.html
Daily meeting with Zippy the pinhead:
http://www.sfgate.com/sf/zippy/
Daily meeting with userfriendly:
http://www.userfriendly.org/static/
ameno...@my-deja.com
<snip>
>In article <37ef22a7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>
Look at the list above. These are the "(more) information" you asked me
to provide. I did so. You then asked for a summary of the points. I did
so, referencing my statements as I went, and giving you, where
applicable, direct quotes. Now, it is incumbent upon you to
"...research further or go buy the book(s) if [you] so choose..." The
fact that you have not read these items, and do not wish to, says (to
me) a great deal about your credibility as one who does any appreciable
research.
**
**First of all, I'm not gonna track "back and forth" with you on this
ridiculous argument. The simple fact is: YOU believe that every citizen
of the ancient Egyptian civilization, all wore wigs. Albeit for some
odd reason they wanted to "look-like" the dark skin inhabitants that
occupy the rest of the continent...they felt embarrassed or ashamed to
look like themselves, (Aryan Model - white skinned and blue eyes), so
they worked night and day until everyone had a braided wig - to act as a
"air-conditioner" in the sun! To think, they wanted to imitate their
darker neighbors from the south than their very own ancestors from the
north...(and I say this with extreme sarcasm.)
You have surely stepped over the line talking about someone else's
CREDIBILITY besides your own! Because I choose not to read about
something I believe to be a waste of time, for one, because it really
doesn't answer some of the more important questions in the field, you
question my credibility? What arrogance.
I'd say we've been down this road before about your own credibility -
and I said it then, and I'll say it again: it sucks! Your snide
comments...in general - I told you then, and I'll tell you again: I'm
not on this newsgroup for YOU. If memory serves me right, it had to do
with your "authoritative figure" HOFFMAN that you kept quoting until I
(did) research the material only to find out he was basing his very own
book on scholars before him with "like-mindedness". So when someone like
myself comes along and does the same thing but chooses authors who are
like myself, YOU have a problem. Then when I pointed out the fact that
he (HOFFMAN) himself stated that in order to understand the pharaohs of
Egypt, one would have to begin with the "Africanus," I didn't hear
another peep out of you. Surely you remember this - I have a copy of the
post. :-)
>As a matter of fact, Katherine, I distinctly remember you asking me to
>give you a "direct quote" from some information I posted some time ago
>when I gave you a reference WHERE to find the information yourself...it
>is not my job (either) to do your research for you! And its this type
>of 'evading-games' you like playing...
How brief your memory must be, then. I have given you both, both prior
and here. In addition to this thread, you were given the information
and quotes you asked for as follows:
**
**Katherine, you are inconsistent, first of all. Secondly, you have
evaded many of my questions by a simple "snip". So, as you sit here and
argue about some wigs that I have vehemently told you many times before
that I'm really not interested in this particular aspect of Egyptian
life, you have kept this charade up making a big deal about the
existence of wigs in ancient society. I know already. They existed. Your
point?
<snip>
Asked and answered. You have now been given the cited references at
least twice, but I see (from your reaction below) that you have no
intention of studying the issue, but merely to adhere to your own
ill-informed beliefs of _what you see_ (ie, subjective and inductive
reasoning) -- which is, of course, your _choice_, but does not pass for
"research," IMO.
**
**"Ill-informed beliefs" is YOUR snide opinion. If I wanted it, I would
have said: "And your crybaby whiny-assed opinion would be?
What passes for research to YOU: is Europeans and Meditteraneans running
around Africa in the intense heat wearing braided wigs, in-between
building pyramids for the dead! And please quit acting dumb...its not
just what (I) see, other people can see it too. After all, I do provide
references in my posts of authors who write about this...I'm not the
only one.
<snip>
>Furthermore, your evidence DOES NOT conclude the African people
>portrayed in the bas-reliefs, (ALL) wore wigs. If it does, I don't want
>you to do the research for me,I simply want you to provide the book and
>page number, and leave the rest to me. When I said I'm not going on a
>wild goose chase, that's what I meant.
As you know, you have been given all of this. I would say you have some
reading to do, then.
**
**Wild goose chase. Not interested. What is gained from all this?
Nothing but your own satisfaction that wigs existed. I'm convinced, they
existed. However, I'm not convinced by a long shot that all Africans in
North Africa wore them. That is simply hogwash gullible people would
believe.
<snip>
**
**Let the record show: K. Griffis has supplied ample evidence that wigs
existed in Egypt. I guess 500 years from now when the archeologist and
anthropologists are doing their research here in America and find a
factory where they made wigs, some idiot will be asserting how: all
Americans wore wigs! I could just hear it now - one archeologist saying
to another: Look, we found 15 wigs!
Next day headline in the newspaper reads: "Archeological find: All
Americans Wore Wigs." Hardly And this is what your argument sounds like,
along with the scholars you've cited in passing, although none were
direct (and) substantial. One always seemed to lack the other...
>Sure,"evidence of wigs" can be seen as far back as the Old Kingdom, but
>HARDLY evidence the ancient fathers who ruled KMT/Egypt, wore them.
There are several very good examples of rulers wearing wigs throughout
Egyptian history, beginning about the Middle Kingdom, and definitely by
the New Kingdom (prior to that, most royal males are shown wearing the
royal wig-cover, the nemes). However, even in the Old Kingdom, one can
see evidence of wig use quite clearly,
**
**FIRST you say there's several good examples of rulers wearing wigs
"beginning about the Middle Kingdom." Then you claim, "even in the Old
Kingdom." Which is it? Either it began in the Old Kingdom - which is one
era, or as you also put it, "beginning about the Middle Kingdom?" Then
in another post, you claimed "predynasty"?
It's also noted this being the first time in many since we've debated
that you have taken on a very strong position regarding the braids
displayed in the stones. Now you assert with complete conviction about
the ancient Egyptians wearing wigs, and promoting that ALL OF THEM wore
them, regardless of the extreme heat. This is the most stupid argument
I've heard from you yet, but I'm not surprised - only amused.
<snip>
>However----->there is<-----(evidence) WRITTEN IN STONE - depicting a
>Queen of Egypt sitting on her throne, getting her hair braided. I would
>much rather TRUST a story written in stone...over a "folktale". :-)
You are referring to the toilet scene of Kawit [not a queen, BTW, but a
princess of the palace and a wife of Mentuhotep II in Dynasty 11; his
chief queen was Temet, who bore his heir, Mentuhotep III]. The scene is
from her sarcophagus [Cairo: JE47397], who is wearing the round valanced
wig, popular in both the Old and early Middle Kingdoms. As mentioned
before, this scene is also described as Kawit being attended by a
hairdresser "who with dainty fingers arranges the locks of her lady's
wig." _Official Catalogue of the Egyptian Museum Cairo_, Mohamed Saleh
and Hourig Suorouzian (Von Zabern: Mainz, 1987), commentary to No. 68b,
toilet scene from the sarcophagus.
**
**Cyril Adred, EGYPTIAN ART says on page 111: "Relief on the limestone
sarcophagus of the Princess Kawit, from Deir el-Bahri, c. 2030 B.C.,
showing her drinking beer poured out by an attendant while handmaiden
dresses her hair." Yet, Runoko Rashidi notes in his essay: THE MIDDLE
KINGDOM OF KEMET: A PHOTO ESSAY refers to the mortuary temple of Kemetic
Monarch Makare Hatshepsut "this was constructed by Senenmut in the glory
days of the XVIIIth Kemetic Dynasty. The Nubian queens Ashayet and Kawit
were the Great Royal Wives of Mentuhotep II." Two different descriptions
- same bas-relief.
So you quote the books you choose, while I will always do the same
whether you like it or not.
Actual sight and the ability to see with our very own eyes what the
ancient Egyptians communicate to us in stones reveal a woman - whether a
Princess or a Queen, sitting upon her throne while having her hair
braided. To call this scene a "toilet scene" is beyond me. More
importantly, it is assanine to assume a princess, much less a queen
would idly sit by to have her "wig" braided. This argument would no
doubt be asserted by American Egyptologists whose main agenda is to DENY
any Black association to ancient Egypt. Katherine, it won't happen.
<snip>
>**FOR THE LAST TIME: I'm sure wigs existed in ancient times and that
>some ancient Egyptian people wore them, however,the people portrayed in
>the stones ALL have braided hair, NORMAL/traditional hairstyle
>characteristic to AFRICAN people.
That is your opinion, and not supported by the artifact evidence of the
wigs themselves found with the deceased [royal, elite and even
non-elite], wig-making facilities [which implied an industry for
the mass production of wigs for at least the elite and royal clientele],
and the evidence _in stone_ that the wigs are worn and such use was
widespread -- at least among the elite and royal, as referenced
to you by myself several time in previous posts and now.
**
**Your "expertise" is scary. Hopefully you have a second job. Anyways,
much of what you write is your opinion also. I don't need evidence to
prove that Africans can braid their natural hair, what planet are you
on? The relief of princess/queen Kawit getting her hair braided is just
that - even though you claim she is getting her wig braided - is
non-sense. It's difficult to braid Africans natural hair, much
less have a wig sitting on our head getting it braided. It would be
almost impossible and completely dumb - and African people can relate
and something I won't be explaining to you no time soon. Surely you can
do some further research if you're even more interested...being you
seem to have this fetish or "fanatical" thing with wigs and all.
Let's look at the relief you mention above of princess Kawit. You say
her wig is getting braided "with dainty fingers arranges the locks of
her lady's wig." This quote, Katherine, is beautiful words that were
applied to this representation from your gifted scholars you have
quoted. One would have to refer to all ancient Egyptians as having
"dainty fingers" then because they closely resemble the Egyptians
fingers. Same length and structure. Who are you trying to fool besides
yourself???
<snip>
>You've worked hard to prove to the NG that "wigs" existed in ancient
>times - and I applaud you. But you FAILED proving the ancient Egyptians
>in the stones all wore them.There is No evidence of such non-sense, nor
>is any substantial amount of the wigs found on the mummies heads, if
>any.
I don't see that I have failed. No, what I see is more a matter that
_you_ refuse to acknowledge that such evidence exists, which I find not
the sign of a person who "does his homework," but of a person whose idea
of belief in a self-created idea is more important than his adherence to
fact and reality -- in short, a fanatic -- not a scholar or
researcher.
**
**You're clueless. You keep pointing out the fact that I refuse to
acknowledge such evidence and I've already told you over and over that I
too believe wigs existed. Are you mentally retarded? You keep wanting me
to refuse your evidence so you have something to distract me with, I
would imagine. But your tired arguments are for someone else because I
have more posts to write.
>> According to your reference below:
>
>>Biri Fay noted in her introduction on wigs in Egypt's Golden Age_ that
>>
>>"It is likely that every Egyptian nobleman and noblewoman owned at
>>least one [wig], and wigs are often included in tombs as part of the
>>equipment for a successful afterlife."["Wigs and Hair Accessories", p.
>>196, showing British Museum from the 18th Dynasty, which is a
>>wig consisting of a mass of light-colored curls on top of darker
>>braids].
>**
>**Where are the wigs to be found in the tombs as "part of the equipment
>for a successful afterlife" as the quote says? Where's the beef, er,
>wigs? Furthermore, the discription of the wig consisting of a mass of
>light-colored curls on top of darker braids sounds just like the wig I
>once saw at the Egyptian Museum.It looked like a cheap dirty wig with a
>bad-braid job. Hardly what the ancient Egyptians would glorify
>themselves wearing in the stones...your argument just stinks!
Yes, this is definitely the argument of a scholar who "does his
homework." I see that you have seen an example of a similar wig in the
Cairo Museum. The reference I made above is to one of the 15 examples in
the British Museum. Yet, you would have had us believe you don't know
that wigs existed and were worn by the ancient Egyptians?
**
**I believe you have your peoples mixed-up if you think I'm falling for
your psyco-babble. My question to you is: where are the wigs to be found
in the tombs as "part of the equipment for a successful afterlife, as
you have quoted? Where are they? You say they are found in all the
tombs. You see, no matter how much documentation you have saying they
are there, no they are not. Simply not true. There is no physical
evidence of wigs in all tombs...most everyone knows that much!
>I have now shown you well-documented examples of wigs as shown _in
stone_, as you quaintly put it. That you continue to deny that such
wig use exists is, IMO, self-delusional.
**
**You're delusional. You have not shown me "well documented facts" but
you have surely shown me documentation exists, plentifully. You have
much written ammunition (documentation) to persuade people to believe
the racist scholars of yesterday who intentionally left out the fact
that Egypt is in Africa and the ancient people were described as "burnt
skin and wooly haired." BERNAL and others have shown extensively the
omissions and deletions from American Egyptologists - such as yourself.
>So, research the information you have been given, "Amenophis X", all
>you wish.You have citations and information to read, and a wide amount
>of visual examples referenced, which you can find -- if you are
>inclined. If not, then stop asking for evidence for which you have been
>amply supplied.
<snip ad hominems>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**You need to stop acting like you can tell me what to do. Secondly, The
sky is blue. You call it red. The sun is yellow. You call it pink. We
disagree all the time...
Katherine Griffis
<snip ad hominems>
>**Let the record show: K. Griffis has supplied ample evidence that wigs
>existed in Egypt. I guess 500 years from now when the archeologist and
>anthropologists are doing their research here in America and find a
>factory where they made wigs, some idiot will be asserting how: all
>Americans wore wigs! I could just hear it now - one archeologist saying
>to another: Look, we found 15 wigs!
Were our reliefs/pictures/images to show that indeed wigs appeared in
most every one (as they did in the Old Kingdom), that persons in these
images showed themselves in many cases with 3-4 different hairstyles as
adults, and then, of course, the evidence of the wigs themselves, such a
situation could be hypothesized as Biri Fay, not I, noted.
Until the last day or so, this had been your reaction when told that the
Ancient Egyptians wore wigs (talk about being inconsistent):
"...the majority of people depicted in the stones happen to wear braids.
Is your dumbass asserting that EVERYONE wore wigs???"
Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 06 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7lrqh2$27o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
"There is NO EVIDENCE that supports the fact that Egyptians wore wigs
throughout its entire population, that stinks. ....You forgot to mention
the fact that the NATIVE INHABITANTS of the land didn't have to wear
wigs to wear the braided hairstyle, it was NATURAL to them."
Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 07 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7lur26$3uf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
"As a matter of fact, I've mentioned to you how suspicious I am the
Egyptian museums I visited only had one (1) on view for the public; if
there's so many, how come I haven't seen them and why don't any of the
books on Ancient Egypt show them - all this evidence and all, for us ALL
to believe as you, Katherine?"
Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 09 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7m42va$1nh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
"... So take your cites on "wigs" and have fun, I'll tell you once more:
I don't believe you, your cites, or any other European/White person
trying to convince Black people of this myth. I bet all of your
references are from White folks, aren't they??? As a matter of fact, I'd
like to ask the Egyptians of TODAY: DO YOU (ALL) WEAR WIGS??? :-))"
Subject: Land of the GODS (PUNT) re: Bulbulanties...
Date: 20 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7n2hpk$5el$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Well, it has now been shown that people _in the stones_ as you put it,
wore wigs. The main problem is you don't want to acknowledge this.
That's your choice. You say that you have. Fine.
<snip ad hominems>
>There are several very good examples of rulers wearing wigs throughout
>Egyptian history, beginning about the Middle Kingdom, and definitely by
>the New Kingdom (prior to that, most royal males are shown wearing the
>royal wig-cover, the nemes). However, even in the Old Kingdom, one can
>see evidence of wig use quite clearly,
>**
>**FIRST you say there's several good examples of rulers wearing wigs
>"beginning about the Middle Kingdom." Then you claim, "even in the Old
>Kingdom." Which is it? Either it began in the Old Kingdom - which is one
>era, or as you also put it, "beginning about the Middle Kingdom?" Then
>in another post, you claimed "predynasty"?
Had you not clipped that section, you would have seen that I stated
"However, even in the Old Kingdom, one can see evidence of wig use quite
clearly,_ where the female's hair_ protrudes below a wig, as it does in
the royal statuary I mentioned above for Queen Meresankh..." showing
that we have evidence of wig use by royal _females_. We also know from
the representations of subjects such as Ranefer from the OK, which I
cited, that _non-royal males_ were shown with wigs.
You asked about royal _male_ use: that is shown fairly clearly by the
beginning of the Middle Kingdom, in the statuary of Amenemhat III, for
example, who wears a ritual wig in some statuary, particularly Cairo: JE
18221/CG 392 (with heavy wig and ritual beard, while JE 37400/CG 42015
shows the same king wearing the nemes and no beard) This statuary is
particularly noteworthy as it was the _earliest_ example of a royal male
wearing such wigs, AFAIK.
We have evidence of _non-gender specific use of artificial hair_ as far
back as the predynastic period. So, there has been no inconsistency
here.
<snip ad hominems>
>It's also noted this being the first time in many since we've debated
>that you have taken on a very strong position regarding the braids
>displayed in the stones. Now you assert with complete conviction about
>the ancient Egyptians wearing wigs, and promoting that ALL OF THEM wore
>them, regardless of the extreme heat. This is the most stupid argument
>I've heard from you yet, but I'm not surprised - only amused.
I have never said that _all_ Egyptians wore them nor that they wore them
at _all times_, AFAICS. I am saying the evidence of wig use exists at
all levels of Egyptian society throughout the history of the ancients,
including braided wigs, which is something you were denying. As you
pointed out, I have proved this.
I said, and I quote, "Nonetheless, any decent book on Egyptian culture
attest to the fact that a variety of wigs were worn by all levels of
society, from the poorest to the richest. Review of the majority of
extant mummy remains attest to the fact that the hair was worn shorn
close to the head, and wigs were worn into the afterlife as well. I am
aware of several remaining examples of such wigs as found in tombs."
Subject: Re: The Egyptian Civilisers
Date: 06 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3782edc3...@news.mindspring.com>
><snip>
>
>>However----->there is<-----(evidence) WRITTEN IN STONE - depicting a
>>Queen of Egypt sitting on her throne, getting her hair braided. I would
>>much rather TRUST a story written in stone...over a "folktale". :-)
>
>You are referring to the toilet scene of Kawit [not a queen, BTW, but a
>princess of the palace and a wife of Mentuhotep II in Dynasty 11; his
>chief queen was Temet, who bore his heir, Mentuhotep III]. The scene is
>from her sarcophagus [Cairo: JE47397], who is wearing the round valanced
>wig, popular in both the Old and early Middle Kingdoms. As mentioned
>before, this scene is also described as Kawit being attended by a
>hairdresser "who with dainty fingers arranges the locks of her lady's
>wig." _Official Catalogue of the Egyptian Museum Cairo_, Mohamed Saleh
>and Hourig Suorouzian (Von Zabern: Mainz, 1987), commentary to No. 68b,
>toilet scene from the sarcophagus.
>**
>**Cyril Adred, EGYPTIAN ART says on page 111: "Relief on the limestone
>sarcophagus of the Princess Kawit, from Deir el-Bahri, c. 2030 B.C.,
>showing her drinking beer poured out by an attendant while handmaiden
>dresses her hair." Yet, Runoko Rashidi notes in his essay: THE MIDDLE
>KINGDOM OF KEMET: A PHOTO ESSAY refers to the mortuary temple of Kemetic
>Monarch Makare Hatshepsut "this was constructed by Senenmut in the glory
>days of the XVIIIth Kemetic Dynasty. The Nubian queens Ashayet and Kawit
>were the Great Royal Wives of Mentuhotep II." Two different descriptions
>- same bas-relief.
Yes, and Aldred does not contradict the Cairo catalogue, either.
Now, for the titles of Kawit, she is NOT called a "Great Royal Wife" of
Mentuhotep II (Hmt nsw wrt), but merely the "wife of the king whom he
loves" [Hmt nsw mrt.f]. The title of "Great Royal Wife" is rather
specific, and denotes the primary wife of the King, who did, after all,
maintain a harem. Temet is one such Great Royal Wife and is the mother
of the king's son and heir, Mentuhotep III. Aashayt also has this
title, for example, although it appears it may have been granted after
the death of Temet. In most cases that I know, a king has only one
Great Royal Wife at a time.
Kawit, Sadme, Henhenit, and Kemsit were all entitled "wife of the king
whom he loves" [Hmt nsw mrt.f], but did not achieve the position of
Great Royal Wife of Mentuhotep II, which would roughly be the equivalent
of "queen." Kawit is referred to as a "princess of the palace" by the
Cairo catalogue, and AFAIK, there is no direct indication that she (or
Aashayt) were of Nubian extraction, although it is possible.
>So you quote the books you choose, while I will always do the same
>whether you like it or not.
Since I have read most books you have, it does not bother me. I will
note where the information given is in full, and where it does not show
what you seem to imply it does. I am interested in presenting the
_full_ facts, not what fits with an "agenda."
>Actual sight and the ability to see with our very own eyes what the
>ancient Egyptians communicate to us in stones reveal a woman - whether a
>Princess or a Queen, sitting upon her throne while having her hair
>braided. To call this scene a "toilet scene" is beyond me. More
>importantly, it is assanine to assume a princess, much less a queen
>would idly sit by to have her "wig" braided. This argument would no
>doubt be asserted by American Egyptologists whose main agenda is to DENY
>any Black association to ancient Egypt. Katherine, it won't happen.
It's a subjective interpretation on your part, really, which is why I am
also entitled to my opinion, which tends to be based upon experience and
knowledge of the whole range of Egyptian culture and art, not an
'agenda.'
>>**FOR THE LAST TIME: I'm sure wigs existed in ancient times and that
>>some ancient Egyptian people wore them, however,the people portrayed in
>>the stones ALL have braided hair, NORMAL/traditional hairstyle
>>characteristic to AFRICAN people.
>
>That is your opinion, and not supported by the artifact evidence of the
>wigs themselves found with the deceased [royal, elite and even
>non-elite], wig-making facilities [which implied an industry for
>the mass production of wigs for at least the elite and royal clientele],
>and the evidence _in stone_ that the wigs are worn and such use was
>widespread -- at least among the elite and royal, as referenced
>to you by myself several time in previous posts and now.
>**
>**Your "expertise" is scary. Hopefully you have a second job. Anyways,
>much of what you write is your opinion also. I don't need evidence to
>prove that Africans can braid their natural hair, what planet are you
>on? The relief of princess/queen Kawit getting her hair braided is just
>that - even though you claim she is getting her wig braided - is
>non-sense. It's difficult to braid Africans natural hair, much
>less have a wig sitting on our head getting it braided. It would be
>almost impossible and completely dumb - and African people can relate
>and something I won't be explaining to you no time soon. Surely you can
>do some further research if you're even more interested...being you
>seem to have this fetish or "fanatical" thing with wigs and all.
You assume first that it is not possible to braid a wig. Really? I can
thing of many examples of both ancient and modern wigs that can be
braided, You also assume that _only_ black people can braid hair --
not true, and if you think that braids are an indicator of ethnicity,
then you can be entitled to that opinion.
However, as braids are known _worldwide_ and across all time periods
(it's a way of containing the hair back from the face, after all, which
is something man has done since he first grew longer hair), I daresay
not many well-read people would accept any contention that _braids_ are
any sort of indicator of ethnicity.
<snip ad hominems>
>**I believe you have your peoples mixed-up if you think I'm falling for
>your psyco-babble. My question to you is: where are the wigs to be found
>in the tombs as "part of the equipment for a successful afterlife, as
>you have quoted? Where are they? You say they are found in all the
>tombs. You see, no matter how much documentation you have saying they
>are there, no they are not. Simply not true. There is no physical
>evidence of wigs in all tombs...most everyone knows that much!
Well, let's see. _Every example we have of wigs comes from the tombs of
their owners._ That is known from most books I have on the topic, for
example. Have _you_ read these? Right.
The best references up front would be those at the British Museum:
Tomb of Yuya [Dyn 18]
Tomb of Queen Isemkhebe
Tombs of the 21st Dynasty Theban Priests [7 of these, of which BM 2560
is an example of the same style]
Obviously there's the wig you saw in Cairo Museum, which came from a
tomb [did you bother to read the card attached to it?]. Every article
citation I gave you previously would describe wigs and their provenance
(where they were found). So, have _you_ checked those? Right.
<snip ad hominems>
Stephen/Amenophis X, I personally don't care whether you do or do not
believe whether the Egyptians wore wigs, that wigs were braided (as we
have such examples in BM 2560, for example), and/or when you thought
they occurred, The facts are we have evidence of wigs, some braided,
and evidence of artificial hair use from the predynastic period onwards.
If you want to believe _your beliefs_, no one stops you.
But please don't ask for information/evidence on a matter and then deny
it exists when it is given to you. You will find that people will think
you lack credibility as a researcher and that your bias is showing.
I will respond to questions as I see fit -- when asked, or where massive
misinformation is given (as what you state in some of your posts).
Beyond that, you can merrily believe as you will -- whether it be the
moon is made of cheese, or braids indicate some "ethnicity" factor.
Neither is true, however.
Z
Why is it when you are presented with irrefutable facts and further readings
you try to rebuff and refute them?. Katherine and various others have
supplied the proof that you seek and request but you are not interested in
it. I gave you a URL pointing to Rahotep the son of Sneferu but you still
try to rebuff stating that the statues were of foreigners which they
weren't.
I suggest that you take a trip to the Cairo Museum and look upon the
evidence yourself. As I said before, Egypt was not a white land not was it a
black land, it was a cosmopolitan land.
Frats
--
Philip Gould
Moderator
am...@onelist.com
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ssgbp$kf0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Janet Gunn
>
> amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> [garbage...]
> > but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
> > Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt.
>
> Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly recent, and
> seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
> fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
>
professor who made it clear that I was not going to get a passing
grade on my art history paper (on an Amarna period fragment in the
Met) unless I at least made reference to the theory that the Ancient
Egyptians in general (and Akhenaten in particular) were black.
Janet Gunn
Katherine Griffis
wrote:
Most Afrocentrist theory began in the late 1960's - early 1970's,
primarily as a US phenomenon which grew out of the African Studies
movements within many universities at the time, so it's recent in many
ways.
The best review of the history and development of Afrocentrist
philosophy can be found in _Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined
Homes_, by Stephen Howe (Verso: London, 1998).
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
ameno...@my-deja.com
florian....@main-rheiner.de wrote:
>>Can you say: Stolen Legacy?
>
> Well, James book is undoubtless an early reference, but for what,
> and undoubtless important, but why?
>
> It was the first published try by a black historian (by education,
> not someone who* likes history*), to claim a own black *meaningfull*
> (classic times) heritage/tradition/past.
**
**Whether James was a black historian or not - isn't the issue. Usually
people with an agenda would make his skin color an issue, exactly what
you have done. While you make light of his qualifications as a
historian, you can't even spell right. Good grief...too many freaks, not
enough circuses...
However you may view G.M. James, he was an author of a book that you
even read. Or have you?
> The merits as well as the limits/faults of this early reference have
> been described in detail by Bernal in "Black Athena".
> BTW a very usefull and thoughtfull written treatise by a trained
> historian, not by some ideology guided person.
**
**I'm always amazed at the louts on this newsgroup who have the gall to
talk about a scholar like BERNAL who has written two volumes of worthy
research...and sit behind their keyboards babbling on and not making any
sense. What ever kind of 'trained historian' Bernal may be, as you have
referred to him, he has authored two important books. What have you
written? :-|
> It is very well understood, that James today it is seen as an early
> reference and of importance, and within some granted borders, this
> is true.
> But that pertains to the function and importance within something
> like regaining a *black* consciousness within the civil rights
> movements. And his call for other black people to *research* their
> past.
**
**Yes, and he was true and correct. Every African person on planet Earth
SHOULD research their past. Relying on Europeans in particular to tell
us the truth about our history is detrimental to our health. And most
likely it will be a MONSTROUS LIE that our history began with slavery.
Of course that's what they use to teach us in school...until that was
challenged. :-|
> Perhaps it has some importance for a very special line of historical
> research history, but by no means it is an important source for
> egyptian history.
**
**What are you babbling about? Simply, what are you trying to say???
>seems to be more based on Black pride than on evidence. It is part of a
>fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
>
> This seems not so far fetched.
**
**Smelly reminds me of a broken record or some other repeating mechanism
that gets on a persons nerve - like flies landing on your food. Smelly
claims what "seems to him" to be:
1. Based on Black pride. People usually make such assanine claims when
they have no other recourse. It's weak. Black pride or whatever, there
are questions that every Black person has a RIGHT to ask whether any of
you like it or not. Black pride...yea right!
2. Part of a fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'. I'm
not surprise Smelly would dream up this statement because he doesn't
know any better, anyhow. If you want to ride along with Smelly on this,
fine, to each his/her own. Furthermore, I can already see where you're
coming from...and that won't last!
> BTW, there were *some* other cultures on the African continent, in
> Nubia and south of the Sahara. Ever tasted?
**
**None of your business.
> But I guess, it is not so "sexy", romantic, so tremendously ancient,
> popular, sellable... as the egypt stuff.
**
**You're an idiot. This is obviously something you read and it grew on
you as truth. What ever. But the information I post on this newsgroup
will be judged by those who have a mind of their own, NOT by the simple
groupies on here who can't stand to hear the Black perspective of
things. BTW, grow up and come back with something intelligent - instead
of your wacked "bait". :-)
> A final hint, just to remember a scientist like You) - ancient
> egyptian plastics follow patterns and rules, for the
> functions/status/job - the life ages - the sexes of an human object.
> They are *not at all* meant to represent a real persons face/body.
> Only hers/his attitude and function.
**
**Where are your references, or, are you some genius that we should
simply take your word for it???
<snip>
> Regards
> Florian Eichhorn
>
> NB. Your harshreaction to Ms. Griffis literature list seems a hint
> to me, that You are not at all accustomed to the methods of
> historical science. - E
**
**I don't give a rat's ass what "seems a hint to you"...
Furthermore, my harsh reaction to Ms. Griffis is between her and I. Not
you.
"To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather. To die for the
people, is heavier than any mountain, and deeper than any sea."
- HUEY P. NEWTON
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
ame...@my-deja.com
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:31:44 -0400, Janet Gunn <jg...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >smiley wrote:
> >>
> >> amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> >> [garbage...]
> >> > but my personal opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were
> >> > Black African people possibly from Ethiopia, Nubia or Punt.
> >> [garbage...]
> >>
> >> Identification of Egypt as a Black African culture is fairly
recent, and
of a
> >> fairly strong American movement of 'Black Revisionism'
> >>
> >professor who made it clear that I was not going to get a passing
> >grade on my art history paper (on an Amarna period fragment in the
> >Met) unless I at least made reference to the theory that the Ancient
> >Egyptians in general (and Akhenaten in particular) were black.
Ah, the truth is now out. All of these years of trying to refute
Afrocentricism is based on what a former professor gave you in an art
class decades ago. Doesn't it sicken you to let black people have the
upper hand? I'm sure you never let a black person tell you anything
after that class, much less have any black professors.
Ian
you can't even spell right. Good grief...too many freaks, not
> enough circuses...
I see no reason for your constant persolnal insults towards people simply
because they disagree with you.
Snip
What ever kind of 'trained historian' Bernal may be, as you have
> referred to him, he has authored two important books.
Snip
This is of course your OPINION, it is important to you only because it fuels
your obsession. The problem with people who research history with
pre-concieved ideas is that they ignore evidence they dont like. The only
way to avoid this is to approach the subject with an open mind. you do not
have this
Snip
> Furthermore, my harsh reaction to Ms. Griffis is between her and I. Not
> you.
Snip
Wrong again. I would hate it if Ms. Griffis were to leave this NG because of
your rude behaviour. I have enjoyed being able to read her very informative
posts. If you were having a private conversation THEN It would be your own
business. The fact is this is a newsgroup and everyone here is free to offer
their opinion on anything you or anyone else posts here. Do you think you
own this media or what..good grief.
It seems to me you have a chip on your shoulder and you see racism
everywhere you look. I would like to remind you that racism is not another
word for anti-black. Your attitude to whites/Europeans or whatever you want
to call them makes you no better than any other racist.
Before you attack me I wish to point out that I have never made a racist
comment in this NG (unlike you).
I have not mentioned you by name because this is your wish. I however have
no reason to hide behind a false name.
Ian
ameno...@my-deja.com
"Ian" <i...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Snip
>Furthermore, my harsh reaction to Ms. Griffis is between her and I. Not
>you.
> Snip
> Wrong again. I would hate it if Ms. Griffis were to leave this NG
> because of your rude behaviour. I have enjoyed being able to read her
> very informative posts. If you were having a private conversation THEN
> It would be your own business. The fact is this is a newsgroup and
> everyone here is free to offer their opinion on anything you or anyone
> else posts here. Do you think you own this media or what..good grief.
**
**Rather or not Ms. Griffis leaves this NG is not my concern.
Furthermore, I am on this NG because I also have a right. I am not going
to accept her behavior towards me either and it seems that she started
on me because she didn't like the evidence I presented, provided with
the books that I referenced. She took personal attacks towards me,
instead of the authors. She didn't have the "open mind" to what I
presented, obviously. She has also done this to me many of times on
another NG and I'm simply TIRED of it.
Moreover, she's a moderator of a "censored" list, join her if you want!
But don't tell me how to behave on an un-moderated newsgroup, I am not
your child and this NG is open to all...
> It seems to me you have a chip on your shoulder and you see racism
> everywhere you look. I would like to remind you that racism is not
> another word for anti-black. Your attitude to whites/Europeans or
whatever you want to call them makes you no better than any other
racist.
**
**No chip on this shoulder, just tired of the same old arguments. I was
posting on this NG without any problems until Katherine and her
cheerleader Smelly, started this crap. I was minding my own business. If
you don't like what I represent, skip my name when you see me post. But,
DO NOT try and tell me how to act on this forum, you do not own it
either! Period.
>I have not mentioned you by name because this is your wish. I however
>have no reason to hide behind a false name.
>
> Ian
**
**I don't care what your reasoning for shit. Just skip my name if you
don't like what I say. BTW, I do receive emails periodically from people
on these NG's who do appreciate my efforts and what I say. That is who I
am reaching out to. If that doesn't include you, stay the hell away from
my name. But I won't be having any more conversations about how I
respond - if you don't like it, stay the hell out of the kitchen!
"To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather. To die for the
people, is heavier than any mountain, and deeper than any sea."
- HUEY P. NEWTON
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- AMENOPHIS X
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
P.S. You're about a crazy as anyone to think I'm hiding behind a name. I
choose to use this screen name, because it's simply a screen name. That
is MY choice! Not yours...
Katherine Griffis
Ahem. I didn't write this portion, Ameen/Peter. Janet Gunn did. I
posted the information on the Howe book. Note the attribution carats
(>>) next time.
I see you're as quick as even to respond with ad hominems, however.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Z
of this list.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator
am...@onelist.com
<ameno...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7svtca$2vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <SKHI3.103$M4....@nnrp4.clara.net>,
> "Ian" <i...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Snip
> >Furthermore, my harsh reaction to Ms. Griffis is between her and I. Not
> >you.
> "To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather. To die for the
> people, is heavier than any mountain, and deeper than any sea."
> - HUEY P. NEWTON
>
> "The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
> Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
> - AMENOPHIS X
>
> AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
> ameno...@my-deja.com
>
> P.S. You're about a crazy as anyone to think I'm hiding behind a name. I
> choose to use this screen name, because it's simply a screen name. That
> is MY choice! Not yours...
>
>
ADR
>you try to rebuff and refute them?. Katherine and various others have
>supplied the proof that you seek and request but you are not interested in
>it. I gave you a URL pointing to Rahotep the son of Sneferu but you still
>try to rebuff stating that the statues were of foreigners which they
>weren't.
Now you know how it feels when you give enough evidence for someone to start
a search, but for their own personal reasons they prefer to make an arse out
of you.
Florian Eichhorn
ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <37F13478...@main-rheiner.de>,
> florian....@main-rheiner.de wrote:
>
> >>Can you say: Stolen Legacy?
> >
> > Well, James book is undoubtless an early reference, but for what,
> > and undoubtless important, but why?
> >
> > It was the first published try by a black historian (by education,
> > not someone who* likes history*), to claim a own black *meaningfull*
> > (classic times) heritage/tradition/past.
> **
> **Whether James was a black historian or not - isn't the issue.
Sorry, it is. It gives the special importance to his book. It is
historic by its own value, as beeing the first....
>Usually
> people with an agenda would make his skin color an issue, exactly what
> you have done. While you make light of his qualifications as a
> historian, you can't even spell right.
1. I did not question his qualification, where did You find that?
2. English is not my mother tongue.
3. Where?
>Good grief...too many freaks, not
> enough circuses...
ad hominem
> However you may view G.M. James,
I read his book, and what Bernal commented on him. All I know.
>he was an author of a book that you
> even read. Or have you?
YesSIR
> > The merits as well as the limits/faults of this early reference have
> > been described in detail by Bernal in "Black Athena".
> > BTW a very usefull and thoughtfull written treatise by a trained
> > historian, not by some ideology guided person.
> **
> **I'm always amazed at the louts on this newsgroup who have the gall to
> talk about a scholar like BERNAL who has written two volumes of worthy
> research...and sit behind their keyboards babbling on and not making any
> sense. What ever kind of 'trained historian' Bernal may be, as you have
> referred to him, he has authored two important books. What have you
> written? :-|
Perhaps You read the passage of my text simply again. It means
1. "Bernal is a trained historian, not an ideology guided person"
2. "He wrote a very usefull ec. treatise."
I like his books very much. Especially as Bernal has an open mind, a
necessity for an historian (in contrast to aggressive intolerance)
But I like it as *inspiring historic* treatise, and not as
*enlightened truth*.
He was and is used instrumental from two sides with small interest
in the points he raised. And this is deplorable.
Now, I can not see where I critisized or attacked Bernal. Perhaps
You will tell me.
> > It is very well understood, that James today it is seen as an early
> > reference and of importance, and within some granted borders, this
> > is true.
> > But that pertains to the function and importance within something
> > like regaining a *black* consciousness within the civil rights
> > movements. And his call for other black people to *research* their
> > past.
> **
> **Yes, and he was true and correct. Every African person on planet Earth
> SHOULD research their past. Relying on Europeans in particular to tell
> us the truth about our history is detrimental to our health. And most
> likely it will be a MONSTROUS LIE that our history began with slavery.
> Of course that's what they use to teach us in school...until that was
> challenged. :-|
>
> > Perhaps it has some importance for a very special line of historical
> > research history, but by no means it is an important source for
> > egyptian history.
> **
> **What are you babbling about? Simply, what are you trying to say???
I guess, it is evident.
But for You: I think, the importance of his book is much more in the
stimulus he gave for other black historians, than his book is
important for egyptology in general.
This is called a "relative" judgement.
(rest snipped, I am not a US citizen, and have no "agenda" there)
>
> > BTW, there were *some* other cultures on the African continent, in
> > Nubia and south of the Sahara. Ever tasted?
> **
> **None of your business.
>
> > But I guess, it is not so "sexy", romantic, so tremendously ancient,
> > popular, sellable... as the egypt stuff.
> **
> **You're an idiot.
Ad hominem ad infinitum.
>This is obviously something you read and it grew on
> you as truth. What ever. But the information I post on this newsgroup
> will be judged by those who have a mind of their own, NOT by the simple
> groupies on here who can't stand to hear the Black perspective of
> things. BTW, grow up and come back with something intelligent - instead
> of your wacked "bait". :-)
?"My" wacked bait?
> > A final hint, just to remember a scientist like You) - ancient
> > egyptian plastics follow patterns and rules, for the
> > functions/status/job - the life ages - the sexes of an human object.
> > They are *not at all* meant to represent a real persons face/body.
> > Only hers/his attitude and function.
> **
> **Where are your references, or, are you some genius that we should
> simply take your word for it???
Any monography, exhibition catalog ec. on egyptian plastics
published after ca. 1978.
BTW this is basic knowledge for someone deeper interested in
Egyption arts/culture.
The practice of non-individual plastic was not restricted to Egypt.
Individualism in plastic is seldom found at all in antique
statues/portrait plastics.
Not even within the greek culture, despite they are said to have
started individual portraying.
> > NB. Your harshreaction to Ms. Griffis literature list seems a hint
> > to me, that You are not at all accustomed to the methods of
> > historical science. - E
> **
> **I don't give a rat's ass what "seems a hint to you"...
May be taken as an answer.
> Furthermore, my harsh reaction to Ms. Griffis is between her and I. Not
> you.
Sorry I dared to read this personal communication on this private ng.
It seems, I have a fundamental misconception aboug ng and the usenet.
Science is based on method, e.g. verifiable sources, a common
language.(technical terms ec.)
Some basic knowledge is not bad either.
If You stick to Your own methods, terms how to handle exchange of
proposals, theses ec, it will be quite difficult to communicate with scientists.
Ad hominem does not support it either.
Regards
F. Eichhorn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racist! = A politically correct way of saying "I disagree with you
on that!".
(Beard/Cerf, The official politically correct dicitionary and
handbook. NY (Villard Books)1992, p. 47
Florian Eichhorn
Katherine Griffis wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:26:43 -0500, "Dewy,Cheatem,and,Howe"
> <must...@flashcom.net> wrote:
>
> >Was it not customary to shave one's head for relief from the summer heat?
> >Wigs were worn for ceremonial purposes and to protect the scalp from the
> >blistering sun.
>
> The heat was only one of several reasons fors cutting the hair short.
> Head lice seems to have been a chronic problem as well, and evidence of
> these lice are found in the remains quite often. Ritual purity and
> cleanliness are other reasons.
Similiar practice is customary in dry&hot regions of the
world, like Tibet, Uigur region (both under PRC control), Turkey,
also whidespread in many other parts of Africa and Asia.
For contemporary ritual purity of shaved head just look at Buddhism.
(snip)
ame...@my-deja.com
Janet Gunn <jg...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Depends what you mean by "fairly recent". In 1974 I had an art
> professor who made it clear that I was not going to get a passing
> grade on my art history paper (on an Amarna period fragment in the
> Met) unless I at least made reference to the theory that the Ancient
> Egyptians in general (and Akhenaten in particular) were black.
Doesn't it really sicken you to see black people acheive any type of
success other than sports? You never let a black person tell you a
damn thing do you?
ame...@my-deja.com
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> Ahem. I didn't write this portion, Ameen/Peter. Janet Gunn did. I
> posted the information on the Howe book.
Why did you recommend that book? Why did you read it in the first
place? I didn't read the book and I don't care to read it. By the
title it's obviously a book that takes a particular side which means
that YOU are one-sided on this issue. You have been one of the
internet's most staunch critics of 'Afrocentricism' over the years
(anyone who doesn't believe me can look up her name in deja news). You
wrote no fewer than 20 type written pages on issues related to 'race'
and ethnicity over the span of 5 years, yet you have the audacity to
criticize others about Afrocentircism.
Katherine Griffis
It is the first serious study of the claims of Afrocentrism, and as you
haven't read the book, you aren't aware of its objective research into
the Afrocentrist claims, I would guess.
For example, Howe concludes the question of 'ancient ethnicity' is most
correct stated by S O Y Keita, who showed the base ancient Egyptian
population was comprised of the "Saharo-tropical range...included
member of earlier [indigenous] poulations, and some Levantine and
Saharan immigrants." [p. 132], and also cites the conclusions of Brace
on the matter, which showed that the Egyptians, modern and present, are
the same as they have been all along -- neither 'black' or 'white', in
the modern uses of the term. They are Egyptians, with affinities to
North Africans, Saharans, and some European groups. Keita generally
agrees with Brace here Their conclusions also correspond to the
conclusions of Hoffman (_Egypt Before the Pharaohs_: 1979).
As for my comments, I tend to present what is known by the evidence on
the ancient Egyptians - artifacts, primary sources, and scholared
research in the field, and not due to a subjective "agenda" that
presents misquotes, outdated information, and in many situations,
serious misrepresentations of the facts.
No further discussion on this matter.
ame...@my-deja.com
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> For example, Howe concludes the question of 'ancient ethnicity' is
> most
> correct stated by S O Y Keita, who showed the base ancient Egyptian
> population was comprised of the "Saharo-tropical range...included
> member of earlier [indigenous] poulations, and some Levantine and
> Saharan immigrants." [p. 132], and also cites the conclusions of Brace
> on the matter, which showed that the Egyptians, modern and present,
> are
> the same as they have been all along -- neither 'black' or 'white',
So the US shouldn't force them to put 'white' down on forms and
documents. That gives you comfort doesn't it? Now you don't have to
worry about ancient Egypt being an ancient African civilization. In
other words what you are saying is that no Egyptians look 'black' or
'white' and they never did.
> in
> the modern uses of the term. They are Egyptians, with affinities to
> North Africans, Saharans, and some European groups. Keita generally
> agrees with Brace here Their conclusions also correspond to the
> conclusions of Hoffman (_Egypt Before the Pharaohs_: 1979).
>
> As for my comments, I tend to present what is known by the evidence on
> the ancient Egyptians - artifacts, primary sources, and scholared
> research in the field,
That book you mentioned takes sides and has a subjective agenda, so
it's not 'scholared material'.
> and not due to a subjective "agenda" that
> presents misquotes, outdated information, and in many situations,
> serious misrepresentations of the facts.
Then I suppose you don't read the bible.
ADR
>Doesn't it really sicken you to see black people acheive any type of
>success other than sports?
Pretty good proffessions and damn well paid? It sickens you to see Mike
Tyson and Evander Holyfield make millions from throwing their arms around?
Most of us work all year round for our whole lives just to make 5% of what
they make in one fight.
Does it also sicken you to see some teenagers from Harlem with no singing
talent, rap on MTV about how he shot some man down the block and how cool
and bad he is, then pocket a few million again?
Is Kofi Annan white? Is Jesse Jackson white? Is Sidney Potier white? Or
maybe you only take of your white tinted glasses when you watch sporting
events.
ameno...@my-deja.com
florian....@main-rheiner.de wrote:
> Sorry I dared to read this personal communication on this private ng.
> It seems, I have a fundamental misconception aboug ng and the usenet.
>
> Science is based on method, e.g. verifiable sources, a common
> language.(technical terms ec.)
> Some basic knowledge is not bad either.
> If You stick to Your own methods, terms how to handle exchange of
> proposals, theses ec, it will be quite difficult to communicate with
scientists.
> Ad hominem does not support it either.
>
> Regards
> F. Eichhorn
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
> Racist! = A politically correct way of saying "I disagree with you
> on that!".
**
**I owe you an apology:
I apologize for the way I responded to your thoughts. I acted hastily,
not to mention being on the 'defensive' side. I also misunderstood what
you were actually saying in your post due to the difference in
communicating. My sincerest apology.
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X