European/Foreign representations in Egyptian Art...
ameno...@my-deja.com
he translated into Greek as "Shepard Kings."
Even in defeat, however, Egyptian culture lost none of its hold on the
Phoenician soul. The Hyskos rulers honored Egyptian gods, built Egyptian
temples, portrayed themselves with Egyptian-style sculpture, and adopted
Egyptian royal titles.(POE)
Reference:
BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE
by Richard Poe
Chapter 27 - Kadmos of Thebes; pg. 156-157
I referenced the above for the purpose of bringing to light how few and
RARE - European or White people are represented in the stones. And when
they are, the above is surely one explanation why...
Reminds me of the "famous" European Bust of Berlin, supposedly in the
likeness of the African Queen, Nefertiti.
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
smiley
Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In article <7momkq$dp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The Egyptian historian Manetho called the invaders Hyksos, a term that
> > he translated into Greek as "Shepard Kings."
>
> "Hyksos" is Greek. It is a corruption of the Egyptian phrase Heqa-khasut
> "foreign rulers". it was Josephus, citing Manetho, who thought it meant
> "shepard kings" (Josephus didn't know Egyptian).
>
> > Even in defeat, however, Egyptian culture lost none of its hold on the
> > Phoenician soul.
> > The Hyskos rulers honored Egyptian gods, built Egyptian
> > temples, portrayed themselves with Egyptian-style sculpture, and adopted
> > Egyptian royal titles.(POE)
>
> > I referenced the above for the purpose of bringing to light how few and
> > RARE - European or White people are represented in the stones. And when
> > they are, the above is surely one explanation why...
>
> funny, there are lots of representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian art,
> including Europeans (Aegeans) -- I guess you missed them. BTW, the
> Canaanite Hyksos are not European, and the Egyptians represented
> Canaanites all the time. What Poe wrote is that THE HYKSOS showed
> *themselves* as Egyptians. The Egyptians however, did not.
>
> The Hyksos were "wannabes". It is common for non-Egyptian wannabes to
> represent themselves as Egyptians, take Egyptian names, and generally
> pretend to be Egyptians. Look at what the Persians, Greeks, and Romans all
> did. It never fooled the Egyptians though. They know who they are.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Troy
Excellent answer!
The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are!
Poe like amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss is confused!
--
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelly <thest...@hotmail.com> cut & paste:
> In article <t.sagrillo-16...@x2-pip46.idcomm.com>, Troy
> Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>In article <7momkq$dp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> The Egyptian historian Manetho called the invaders Hyksos, a term that
> he translated into Greek as "Shepard Kings."
> >
>"Hyksos" is Greek. It's a corruption of the Egyptian phrase Heqa-khasut
>"foreign rulers". it was Josephus, citing Manetho, who thought it meant
>"shepard kings" (Josephus didn't know Egyptian).
**
**Poe writes: "Most Egyptologists believe that Hyksos is simply a
garbled version of Hekaw Khasut---Egyptian for "Rulers of Foreign
Lands."(POE)
At the time of my posting, I didn't find it necessary to cite all that
because to allow others to either add or subtract. However, this simply
can't be done with the stroke of a few keys on your keyboard WITHOUT
providing a reference.
Asking stupid smelly to provide a reference...would be like asking him
if he knows how to read. NOPE.
>Even in defeat, however, Egyptian culture lost none of its hold on the
>Phoenician soul. The Hyskos rulers honored Egyptian gods, built
>Egyptian temples, portrayed themselves with Egyptian-style sculpture
>and adopted Egyptian royal titles.(POE)
> >
>I referenced the above for the purpose of bringing to light how few and
>RARE - European or White people are represented in the stones. And when
>they are, the above is surely one explanation why...
> >
>funny, there are lots of representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian
>art, including Europeans (Aegeans) -- I guess you missed them.
**
**I guess you'll need to provide some evidence of this "lots of
representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian art". If you read what I
posted, you'd soon understand that I didn't miss them at all. As a
matter of fact, if one was paying attention, that's what this post is
about, in the first place. But it has nothing to do with a lot or many
as you infer...
BTW, the
> > Canaanite Hyksos are not European, and the Egyptians represented
> > Canaanites all the time. What Poe wrote is that THE HYKSOS showed
> > *themselves* as Egyptians. The Egyptians however, did not.
**
**Please reveal what the "Canaanites" looked like and who they were. Oh,
and please provide some reference(s). And I understood perfectly well
what Poe wrote about the Hyksos portraying themselves as
"egyptians"...and I never posted or said the Egyptians portrayed them
one way or the other...
>The Hyksos were "wannabes". It is common for non-Egyptian wannabes to
>represent themselves as Egyptians, take Egyptian names, and generally
>pretend to be Egyptians. Look at what the Persians, Greeks, and Romans
>all did. It never fooled the Egyptians though. They know who they are.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Troy
**
**Thanks Troy. I already knew the Hyksos were "wannabees" and all the
rest of the forgers and thieves. This isn't new. But at least we're on
the same page...
> Excellent answer!
**
**To an idiot like you, smiley/smelly.
>
> The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are!
>
> Poe like amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss is confused!
>
> --
> :-)
**
**You're a loser, smelly. You don't contribute to nothing but your own
stupidity, you shower yourself with dumbness. You use not one iota of
common sense...and I wish you would leave me out of your insane madness.
I'll be here on SCE whether your sorry, shady ass likes it or not.
You're pathetic.
smiley
^ afrocentric passing of wind
> **You're a loser, smelly. You don't contribute to nothing but your own
> stupidity, you shower yourself with dumbness. You use not one iota of
> common sense...and I wish you would leave me out of your insane madness.
> I'll be here on SCE whether your sorry, shady ass likes it or not.
> You're pathetic.
If you don't like the message KILL the messenger heh? It will NOT work!
As I said:
The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are!
amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss like Poe is confused!
--
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smiley <thest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> ^ afrocentric passing of wind
>
> > **You're a loser, smelly. you shower yourself with dumbness. leave
> > me out of your insane madness. You're pathetic.
>
<snip>
>
> As I said:
>
> The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are!
**
**Noticable to all is the fact that you constantly use "Afrocentrist" as
an excuse to remain stupid. An Afrocentrist, as I see it, is one who
espouses truth pertaining to Africans in particular, the modern day
white man's "Black person" who think for themselves. In baby talk - one
who is Black and speaks truth about what pertains to himself in his own
experience and such, his own learning and understanding and
communicating that to the world.
An Afrocentrist, one who scares the living daylights out of deceivers
of truth, otherwise known as the "worlds losers."
>
> amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss like Poe is confused!
>
> --
> :-)
**
**Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
scholar.
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
<snip>
The Egyptian historian Manetho called the invaders Hyksos, a term that
he translated into Greek as "Shepard Kings."
Even in defeat, however, Egyptian culture lost none of its hold on the
Phoenician soul. The Hyskos rulers honored Egyptian gods, built Egyptian
temples, portrayed themselves with Egyptian-style sculpture, and adopted
Egyptian royal titles.(POE)
Reference:
BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE
by Richard Poe
Chapter 27 - Kadmos of Thebes; pg. 156-157
I referenced the above for the purpose of bringing to light how few and
RARE - European or White people are represented in the stones. And when
they are, the above is surely one explanation why...
Reminds me of the "famous" European Bust of Berlin, supposedly in the
likeness of the African Queen, Nefertiti.
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
smiley
wrote:
I repeat:
The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are
and they don't know shit from wild honey! Poe, Diop, Sertima
are ALL Afrocentrists "wannabes" like you amenophixsssssssss
sssssssssssssssssssssss (full of afrocentric wind)!
Egyptians are and were ALWAYS Egyptians, and you CANT do a
thing about it.
--
:-)
smiley
Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In article <7mq9k7$e9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > **Please reveal what the "Canaanites" looked like and who they were.
>
> They were the people living along the coast from Syria, south to
> Palestine. This area was called "Canaan". Later on, in the Iron Age, the
> northern part, esp. Lebanon, was called "Phoenicia". They were
> Semitic-speaking peoples that lived in city-states.
>
> How did they look? Well the men had beards and often had hair that was
> sort of rounded around the neck. They often wore kilts. The ones in the
> north work long robes, similar to a modern Arabic dishdashah. Try looking
> at some nice New Kingdom art. The Egyptians often represented them, often
> kicking their arses.
>
> > Oh, and please provide some reference(s).
>
> Sure.
>
> Bietak, M. 1991. "Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age."
> _Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research_ 281:27-72.
>
> Bietak, M. 1996. _Avaris, Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at
> Tell el-Dab;a_. Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished
> Lecture in Egyptology 1. London: British Museum Press.
> -
> Liebowitz, H. A. 1978. "The Impact of the Art of Egypt on the Art of Syria
> and Palestine". In _Immortal Egypt: Invited Lectures on the Middle East at
> the University of Texas at Austin_, edited by D. Schmandt-Besserat.
> Malibu: Undena Publications. 27-36.
>
> Mohammad, M. A.-K. 1959. "The Administration of the Syro-Palestine During
> the New Kingdom." _Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte_
> 56:105-137.
>
> Redford, D. B. 1970. "The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition."
> _Orientalia_ 39 (new series):1-51.
>
> Redford, D. B. 1990. _Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom_. Beer-Sheva:
> Studies by the Deptarment of Bible and Ancient Near East 4. Beer-Sheva:
> Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.
>
> Redford, D. B. 1992. _Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times_.
> Princeton: Princeton University Press.
>
> Wright, M. 1985. "Conacts Between Egypt and Syro-Palestine During the
> Protodynastic Period." _Biblical Archaeologist: Perspectives on the
> Ancient World from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean_ 48 (4):240-253.
>
> Wright, M. 1988. "Conacts Between Egypt and Syro-Palestine During the Old
> Kingdom." _Biblical Archaeologist: Perspectives on the Ancient World from
> Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean_ 51 (3):143-161.
>
> This should get you started.
>
>
> > >The Hyksos were "wannabes". It is common for non-Egyptian wannabes to
> > >represent themselves as Egyptians, take Egyptian names, and generally
> > >pretend to be Egyptians. Look at what the Persians, Greeks, and Romans
> > >all did. It never fooled the Egyptians though. They know who they are.
>
> > **Thanks Troy. I already knew the Hyksos were "wannabees" and all the
> > rest of the forgers and thieves. This isn't new. But at least we're on
> > the same page...
>
> Indeed! Egyptian history is filled with people pretending to be Egyptian
> by dressing up like them and taking Egyptian names. One of the most
> blatant examples was the entire Dynasty 25 (the Nubian dynasty from
> Sudan). They actually built Egyptian-style temples and even pyramids down
> in Sudan! Of couse the pyramids weren't exactly the same as the Old
> Kingdom ones, but you really can't blame them -- they tried. They even
> borrowed a version of hieroglyphs, though it was really, really corrupted
> by the time their descendants, the Meroites, started using it for the
> Meroitic language. But they had the Egyptians to thank for this highpoint
> in their culture.
>
> Take care,
>
> Troy
Excellent response!
--
:-)
Katherine Griffis
Smiley:
>**
>**Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
>other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
>scholar.
Sorry: even from Poe's own website, he acknowledges he is a journalist
only.
"...award-winning journalist Richard Poe..."
About the author:
"Richard Poe is an award-winning journalist, and New York Times
bestselling author. Born in Syracuse, New York, he graduated with Honors
in Creative Writing from Syracuse University. Poe was formerly Managing
Editor of the East Village Eye and later Senior Editor of SUCCESS.
Today, he makes his living as a fulltime author. Poe lives with his wife
Marie in New York City."
http://members.aol.com/richardpoe/index6.html
(as of July 17, 1999)
and from his _Black Spark, White Fire_ book site at Amazon.com:
"...Richard Poe is an award-winning journalist and New York Times
bestselling author. He was formerly senior editor of Success magazine,
and before that, a reporter for the New York Post and managing editor of
the East Village Eye. Since 1992, he has been a fulltime author, writing
both fiction and non-fiction. Poe lives with his wife Marie in New York
City..."
He classifies his works a "popular" works, and not as scholarly works.
He particular refers to _Black Spark, White Fire_ See his interview with
Amazon.com at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/show-interview/p-r-oeichard/002-6330082-9305436
(as of July 17, 1999)
Apparently, Poe appears to have written a number of
business/entrpreneurial books prior to _Black Spark,White Fire_ (from
the selection attached to his name at Amazon.com, and his interview
comments, referenced above, that "...My day job happens to be writing
self-help books." ). Prior to _Black Spark, White Fire_, he had never
written a book on history.
[His interview classifies _Black Spark, White Fire_ as follows: "This
is a non-fiction work dealing with some controversial theories about
ancient history. I poured my heart and soul into this book. More than
anything else I've written, it reflects my deepest feelings about the
grandeur and mystery of human civilization."]
Mr. Poe reviewed a good bit of the theories of his book online Usenet
about a year and a half ago. I found them intriguing, but not unaware
of the fact that (as has been said before) that the ancient Egyptian
culture was a varied mix of ethnic groups, in which no group dominated
as the "original" Egyptians. He also holds out an objective basis for
'race' [apparently using the US classifications standards], a viewpoint
which I do not share. I will let Mr. Poe comment further about his work
online, but I think I have noted his work correctly, Stephen; you can
find them in Dejanews archives.
Troy Sagrillo, OTOH, has given to you excellent references from
scholarly works as to the origins of the Hyksos, and other
representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian art. He has also pointed
out the rather diverse ways non-Egyptians are represented in Egyptian
art from his own viewpoint, which is accurately reported, I think.
FWIW, Troy is a doctoral candidate in Egyptology at the University of
Toronto, and his Masters work focused on Egyptian art and archaeology in
ANE cultures of Syria and Palestine. IMO, he is at least as
well-qualified to talk on the topic as almost anyone in the field, and
likely a good bit better than Poe in his knowledge of the subject.
However, as we have had discussion how you feel about academia,
scholarly works, and academics, I will leave it at that. But Poe, by
his own admission, is not a scholar in the sense of the word as one who
is "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge."
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.
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelley <thest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7mqt5a$jqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ameno...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <170719991529471730%thest...@hotmail.com>,
> > smelley <thest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
> > > ^ afrocentric passing of wind
> > >
> **You're a loser, smelly. you shower yourself with dumbness. leave
> > me out of your insane madness. You're pathetic.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > As I said:
> > >
> > > The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are!
>**
>*Noticable to all is the fact that you constantly use "Afrocentrist" as
>an excuse to remain stupid. An Afrocentrist, as I see it, is one who
>espouses truth pertaining to Africans in particular, the modern day
>white man's "Black person" who think for themselves. In baby talk - one
>who is Black and speaks truth about what pertains to himself in his own
>experience and such, his own learning and understanding and
>communicating that to the world.
> >
>An Afrocentrist, one who scares the living daylights out of deceivers
>of truth, otherwise known as the "worlds losers."
> >
> > >
> > >amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss like Poe is confused!
> > >
> > > --
> > > :-)
> > **
> > **Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
> > other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
> > scholar.
> >
>
> I repeat:
**
**Uh-oh, your pom-poms are shaking wildly again...calm down.
> The Afrocentrists are "wannabes" that DONT know who they are
> and they don't know shit from wild honey! Poe, Diop, Sertima
> are ALL Afrocentrists "wannabes" like you amenophixsssssssss
> sssssssssssssssssssssss (full of afrocentric wind)!
**
**:-o (yawn!)
> Egyptians are and were ALWAYS Egyptians, and you CANT do a
> thing about it.
>
> --
> :-)
**
**And the Ancient Egyptians were Kemetians, otherwise known as Africans
and you CANT do a thing about that...they were not ALWAYS Egyptians. Get
your facts straight before hitting that "send" button...if you care to
espouse something honest...and I use the word "if" loosely...
smiley
<gri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:38:51 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote, to
> Smiley:
>
> >**
> >**Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
> >other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
> >scholar.
>
amenophixssssssssssssssssssss this is an excellent response to
your afrocentric mumbo jumbo! Read it carefully!
Egyptians are/were always Egyptians, its very simple!
--
:-)
smiley
wrote:
> **And the Ancient Egyptians were Kemetians, otherwise known as Africans
> and you CANT do a thing about that...they were not ALWAYS Egyptians. Get
> your facts straight before hitting that "send" button...if you care to
> espouse something honest...and I use the word "if" loosely...
You are still CONFUSED with this afrocentric horseshit!
[send]
--
:-)
smiley
Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In article <7mrkkd$qcl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > **And the Ancient Egyptians were Kemetians,
>
> yes, that is true.
>
> > otherwise known as Africans
>
> well, there were (and are) other Africans besides Egyptians, but yes, the
> Egyptians were (and are) from Africa
>
> > and you CANT do a thing about that...
>
> who disagrees with the above?
>
> > they were not ALWAYS Egyptians.
>
> what were they before they were Egyptians??? non-Egyptians?
>
> best wishes,
>
> Troy
amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss what is your answer?
A hint: Rtlcgvnaf jrer nyjnlf Rtlcgvnaf [ROT-13]
--
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelly <thest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :-| <---(is more like it)
**
**You idiot...pay attention. My answer is in the first sentence of my
response in which Troy agreed to...Kemetians. (Good grief!)
NEXT!!! :-))
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
"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
gri...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:38:51 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote, to
> Smelly(thest...@hotmail.com):
>
> >**
> >**Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
> >other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
> >scholar.
>
> Sorry: even from Poe's own website, he acknowledges he is a journalist
> only.
**
**You never cease to amaze me...but what should I expect. Please look up
the word "scholar" in your nearest dictionary and after reading its
meaning, whether you apply it to POE or not is YOUR business. I stated
what I believe his "journalistic" skills have taken him to, whether you
agree with it or not. I'm not surprised by the fact that you would go to
such extent of exposing such details without even approaching the book
with an "open mind," something HOMER so humbly characterized...
But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? Have you even read
the book???
<snip>
>
>[His interview classifies _Black Spark, White Fire_ as follows: "This
> is a non-fiction work dealing with some controversial theories about
> ancient history. I poured my heart and soul into this book. More than
> anything else I've written, it reflects my deepest feelings about the
> grandeur and mystery of human civilization."]
**
**And your point? Why don't you just read the book for yourself and quit
acting like a total...(can't put my finger on the word right now) and
read it. Otherwise, all your finger pointing about his background will
gain you NOTHING but "hot air" as you've displayed many times. I'm being
patient, even with that little "smelly thing" as your cheerleader. But
please, stick to the points and refute it with your "learning"
skills...(if) you can.
> Mr. Poe reviewed a good bit of the theories of his book online Usenet
> about a year and a half ago. I found them intriguing, but not unaware
> of the fact that (as has been said before) that the ancient Egyptian
> culture was a varied mix of ethnic groups, in which no group dominated
> as the "original" Egyptians.
**
**There you go again, spewing out venomous poison about something you
FAIL to provide any substantial evidence on. It stinks, and until you
provide the evidence that Egypt was founded by this "diverse" culture,
Katherine, I'll have to stick to what I have said before: The people who
founded Egypt, based upon the evidence found in Qustul, Nubia...were
Nubians.
YOU provide the evidence of this diverse culture, before anything. You
made the claim, now back it up! Let's hear it...
<snip>
> Troy Sagrillo, OTOH, has given to you excellent references from
> scholarly works as to the origins of the Hyksos, and other
> representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian art. He has also pointed
> out the rather diverse ways non-Egyptians are represented in Egyptian
> art from his own viewpoint, which is accurately reported, I think.
**
**What YOU think doesn't go far these days, not without your so-called
evidence you have consistently FAILED to provide on the "diversity"
issue. Your mere "fluff" will not work, anymore.
>FWIW, Troy is a doctoral candidate in Egyptology at the University of
>Toronto, and his Masters work focused on Egyptian art an archaeology in
>ANE cultures of Syria and Palestine. IMO, he is at least as
>well-qualified to talk on the topic as almost anyone in the field, and
>likely a good bit better than Poe in his knowledge of the subject.
**
**That is YOUR opinion. And what, may I ask, has Troy written and
published? I thought so...and you see, that is the point. My posts are
based on (further, additional) evidence of what I've already learned
from many other scholars and historians. You, Ms. Griffis - put too much
focus on his (POE) criteria as a "scholar" when it would be plain enough
to see: IF YOU WOULD ONLY READ IT for yourself. You speak of what you
don't know, surrounding his book, anyway. You look very bad...
>However, as we have had discussion how you feel about academia,
>scholarly works, and academics, I will leave it at that. But Poe, by
>his own admission, is not a scholar in the sense of the word as one who
>is "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge."
**
**However you would like to evade the pertinent issues raised in his
book "Black Spark, White Fire," is your choice. You choose to simply
ignore the issues he raises in his book and pass it off as
"afrocentricity". That too, will not work in the 21st
Century...guaranteed. This applies to your cheerleader (smelly) too...
> Regards --
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
**
**AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
**ameno...@my-deja.com
Katherine Griffis
>In article <3791fb99...@news.mindspring.com>,
> gri...@mindspring.com wrote:
Amenophis X/AUSAR said:
>> >**Let's see, POE wrote a book: BLACK SPARK, WHITE FIRE...you on the
>> >other hand, wrote nothing. Besides - you're a cheerleader, POE is a
>> >scholar.
>>
>> Sorry: even from Poe's own website, he acknowledges he is a journalist
>> only.
>**
>**You never cease to amaze me...but what should I expect. Please look up
>the word "scholar" in your nearest dictionary and after reading its
>meaning, whether you apply it to POE or not is YOUR business. I stated
>what I believe his "journalistic" skills have taken him to, whether you
>agree with it or not. I'm not surprised by the fact that you would go to
>such extent of exposing such details without even approaching the book
>with an "open mind," something HOMER so humbly characterized...
Ahem: the definition I gave in the previous post WAS from the
dictionary [AHED], Stephen, so, no luck there.
I said nothing about Poe's journalistic skills: I said he did not
classify himself as a "scholar", which you claimed him to be. And he
doesn't. He classifies himself as a journalist who writes popular
works. In the case of _Black Spark, White Fire_, he, in fact, says the
work is from "my deepest feelings" and does not comment in heavy terms
of 'research,' and so on. These are HIS words, sir, not mine, so if you
want to blast away at it, go ahead. However, recall that ad hominem
attacks are the last resort when one cannot prove his own point.
As for approaching the book with an open mind, you jump to erroneous
assumptions, i. e. . -- that I did not read the book, and that I did not
have an open mind when/if doing so. Both assumptions are wrong.
>But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? Have you even read
>the book???
I have indeed. I have also debated Mr. Poe online on some of his
contentions from that same work, as I referred to in the previous post
as existing in Dejanews [see below].
<snip of usual ad hominem attack>
>> Mr. Poe reviewed a good bit of the theories of his book online Usenet
>> about a year and a half ago. I found them intriguing, but not unaware
>> of the fact that (as has been said before) that the ancient Egyptian
>> culture was a varied mix of ethnic groups, in which no group dominated
>> as the "original" Egyptians.
>**
>**There you go again, spewing out venomous poison about something you
>FAIL to provide any substantial evidence on. It stinks, and until you
>provide the evidence that Egypt was founded by this "diverse" culture,
>Katherine, I'll have to stick to what I have said before: The people who
>founded Egypt, based upon the evidence found in Qustul, Nubia...were
>Nubians.
Excuse me? Have you read any post that I have written? I have cited --
gods know, several times -- the works of many authors on the topic. You
don't LIKE those authors [Hoffman's work on predynastic population
diversification in Egypt being your particular bete noire], and have (as
I pointed out) never gone beyond a book along the Afrocentrist line.
This does not suddenly invalidate the authors' work or research just
because you do not care for them, however.
So, since you cannot provide me direct eyewitness quotes from Denon [re:
this so-called evidence of the Sphinx's nose destruction by Napoleon
issue, when it can be shown by no less than 3-4 medieval and immediate
pre-Napoleon works not to be true], and when I point out the direct
works of Herodotus (in Greek, mind you) and show they do not say what
you think they say about the Egyptians, you instead tell me that you
"don't care" what the actual authors and original works say, you want to
believe and understand what your various secondary authors say.
That is your choice, Stephen, and you are welcome to believe as you
wish, but understand this: _most people_ do not see that as "research"
or scholarship, and as far as I am concerned, I will continue to point
out what the research and field work says on these topics. That has
been my point all along: each reader to SCE and other newsgroups can
then decide what they want to read from what we both submit as
"evidence." I believe in presenting BOTH sides. Period.
So, let's now examine the assertion that you have made: "...The people
who founded Egypt, based upon the evidence found in Qustul, Nubia...were
Nubians." For one, I see you did not "..provide any substantial
evidence.." on this assertion, and so, let's talk about what research
HAS been done on this. It is Bruce Willams' work on Nubian artifacts
that is the basis of your assertion, BTW.
The Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted. Most
recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group and
Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", _Egypt in
Africa_, T. Celenko (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art:Indianapolis,
1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of trade only, saying
in his article on Nubia for the University of Pennsylvania's "Searching
for Ancient Egypt" exhibit:
"...Many items of Egyptian as well as Near Eastern origin were found in
the tombs indicating that the A-Group had substantial trade links. The
classic A-Group kings also made use of Egyptian-style iconography which
suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms
in late Predynastic Egypt." [_Searching for Ancient Egypt_, David
O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas
Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
Samuel Mark, in his _From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic
Trade Routes_, (Chatham Publishing, London, 1997), also pointed out the
following problems with Williams' chronology of the Qustul burner as
preceding development of the Egyptian culture in Egypt:
a) The L 24 tomb in which the Qustul burner was found was dated by
Williams to Naqada IIIa is based upon fragments of pots, which is
assigned that date by Williams due to a questionable dating of a find of
a knife in a tomb at Azor in Palestine. When based upon the styling of
the jugs and pots alone, the date of the burner is set to 3100 BCE
[First Dynasty].
b) Within the L 24 tomb, 3 types of pot stands were found. Williams
proposes a Naqada IIIa dating, although the archaeological review on the
items shows these to be of Dynasty I design.
c) A shallow bowl fragment and a portion of a cylinder jar with wavy
lines were also found in L 24. Williams argues again for a Naqada IIIa
dating for these items, but the shallow stone bowl design was produced
only in the First Dynasty, as well as the cylinder jar (although a
possible earlier development of the cylinder jar is noted).
d) The "linchpin" to Williams' argument for an earlier dating,
however, for the burner and all L 24 items requires acceptance of a
theory for an earlier dating of a mummified arm recovered from the tomb
of Djer [third pharaoh of the First Dynasty], proposing that this arm
was stolen from a Naqada IIIa tomb and moved to Djer's tomb in Abydos.
He bases this conjecture on one bracelet found on the arm, decorated
with serekhs and a falcon perched on top (which is suggested as a part
of the possible reconstruction of the Qustul burner). Based upon his
review of the style, he proposes that this motif was no longer used by
Djer's time and must have come from an earlier tomb. [Petrie, contra,
dates the same bracelet to early in the reign of Djer, based upon
evidence discussed below].
However, Williams does not take into account that _other items found in
Djer's tomb_ also contained plaques of similar design made of lapis
lazuli and ivory which parallel the gold and turquoise plaques found on
the bracelet, and are, again, datable to the First Dynasty.
This is also compounded by the fact that the arm was found wrapped in
linen, which was part of the mummification process of the First Dynasty,
but was not part of the Naqada IIIa period.
Finally, there exists iconography in Egypt for the serekh, falcon, and
other images found on the Qustul burner, which predate the Naqada IIIa
period. Mark sums up these points by saying
"According to the archaeological evidence from L 24, then, it seems that
the tomb should be dated to the early First Dynasty, as should the
Qustul burner. Therefore, based upon the evidence, the Nubian incense
burners, the Scorpion macehead, and the Metropolitan Museum [Gebel el
Arak] knife handle all date to the unification of Egypt or later." [pp.
112-115].
IOW, the influence of Egypt is TO the Qustul burner as a matter of a
traded item, and NOT as evidence of an origin point, in Mark's view. I
am sure you do not agree with this, but it is a valid series of
questions to Williams' assertions.
>YOU provide the evidence of this diverse culture, before anything. You
>made the claim, now back it up! Let's hear it...
See above.
>> Troy Sagrillo, OTOH, has given to you excellent references from
>> scholarly works as to the origins of the Hyksos, and other
>> representations of non-Egyptians in Egyptian art. He has also pointed
>> out the rather diverse ways non-Egyptians are represented in Egyptian
>> art from his own viewpoint, which is accurately reported, I think.
>**
>**What YOU think doesn't go far these days, not without your so-called
>evidence you have consistently FAILED to provide on the "diversity"
>issue. Your mere "fluff" will not work, anymore.
Words, words, and ad hominem at that. Neither Troy nor I have done
anything more than point out what the artifact, linguistic, and
historical sources indicate.
[Aside: "Kemetians", BTW, equals, to most people in Egyptology,
"Egyptians." According to the Egyptian language {see Hannig: 883a}, the
term _kmt[i]_ and _rmT n kmt_ translates (into English, that is) as "the
Egyptians," "people of Kemet [Egypt]." It does not have, to me (or I
daresay, to Troy, who will state his view, I'm sure), the "loaded"
meaning you imply, so _I_ don't see Troy as "agreeing" with you] .
I have consistently backed up MY statements with some pretty solid
research works, I think. You, OTOH, have given me ad hominem attacks,
and secondary authors' assertions that have not read most of the
primary works. Again, am I to assume this is what is passing today for
"calm and scholared research" and "having done [my] homework," Stephen?
>>FWIW, Troy is a doctoral candidate in Egyptology at the University of
>>Toronto, and his Masters work focused on Egyptian art an archaeology in
>>ANE cultures of Syria and Palestine. IMO, he is at least as
>>well-qualified to talk on the topic as almost anyone in the field, and
>>likely a good bit better than Poe in his knowledge of the subject.
>**
>**That is YOUR opinion. And what, may I ask, has Troy written and
>published? I thought so...and you see, that is the point.
I suggest you might want to check on what Troy has done - either from
himself, or perhaps at a local bookstore. He has been involved in at
least 2 books on Egyptian art, for example, and quite recently. It is
possible he's published a good deal more than that as well.
<snip of ad hominem implying I haven't read Poe's work, which I have>
Again, Stephen, it is YOU who classifies Poe as a "scholar" in this
field. I merely pointed out that _he_ does not consider himself such,
and acknowledges his work as that of a "journalist" who is 'writing from
his heart' and "[his] deepest feelings" about a topic. There is
nothing wrong with that, but If _you_ wish to give it the weight you
apparently do, it is a choice on your part. However from an objective
standpoint, Poe does not meet the classification of "scholar", which
technically is defined as
scholar: A specialist in a given branch of knowledge. [AHED]
Regards -
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
ameno...@my-deja.com
gri...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:22:30 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>**
>**You never cease to amaze me...but what should I expect.Please look up
>the word "scholar" in your nearest dictionary and after reading its
>meaning, whether you apply it to POE or not is YOUR business. I stated
>what I believe his "journalistic" skills have taken him to, whether you
>agree with it or not.I'm not surprised by the fact that you would go to
>such extent of exposing such details without even approaching the book
>with an "open mind," something HOMER so humbly characterized...
>
>I said nothing about Poe's journalistic skills: I said he did not
>classify himself as a "scholar", which you claimed him to be. And he
>doesn't. He classifies himself as a journalist who writes popular
>works.
**
**Poe, IMO, is a learned person, the very description listed under the
word "scholar". IMO, Poe meets that standard. As I stated above and
which you completely ignored, whether or not YOU apply that definition
to Poe, is your business. What is so difficult about that???
In the case of _Black Spark, White Fire_, he, in fact, says the
>work is from "my deepest feelings" and does not comment in heavy terms
>of 'research,' and so on. These are HIS words, sir, not mine, so if you
>want to blast away at it, go ahead. However, recall that ad hominem
>attacks are the last resort when one cannot prove his own point.
**
**So much "hot air". I already know, Katherine, what he says about
himself and his book, remember, I have it. Good grief.
> As for approaching the book with an open mind, you jump to erroneous
> assumptions, i. e. that I did not read the book, and that I did not
> have an open mind when/if doing so. Both assumptions are wrong.
**
**I didn't jump to anything, I simply asked you if you had read the book
or not. Please see the next paragraph. Where did I "jump to erroneous
assumptions...?" As far as you having an open mind or not, you can't
even admit the people depicted in the stones wore their own natural hair
as braids, instead, you'd rather convince the newsgroup they all
(ancient Egyptians) wore "braided wigs." All of them. Men, Women, and
children. They wanted to look like their "Black" neighbors! :-)
<snip>
>**
>**There you go again, spewing out venomous poison about something you
>FAIL to provide any substantial evidence on. It stinks, and until you
>provide the evidence that Egypt was founded by this "diverse" culture,
>Katherine, I'll have to stick to what I have said before:The people who
>founded Egypt, based upon the evidence found in Qustul, Nubia...were
>Nubians.
>
>You don't LIKE those authors [Hoffman's work on predynastic population
>diversification in Egypt being your particular bete noire], and have
>(as I pointed out) never gone beyond a book along the Afrocentrist
>line.
> This does not suddenly invalidate the authors' work or research just
> because you do not care for them, however.
**
**Since you CLAIM to be this "Egyptologist" and all, why must you leave
out the page number to this work of Hoffman's? Why must you send "any"
of us on a wild goose chase and expect others to give you page numbers,
authors, and all...Please, give me the page number in Hoffman's book
where I can find this evidence?
>So,since you cannot provide me direct eyewitness quotes from Denon [re:
>this so-called evidence of the Sphinx's nose destruction by Napoleon
>issue,
**
**I never said that I could provide direct eyewitness quotes from Denon,
you simply asked for it. I told you then, you do the research youself
since I at least led you in the direction. But before running off at the
mouth, I'd at least see what it says before dismissing it, wouldn't you
say - having an 'open mind' and all...
<snip- re: Napoleon and defacing of the Sphinx>
**
**I stated overall, and if you were paying attention, that whoever
defaced the Ancient Sphinx, they were trying to hide "something". I also
stated that whoever it was, obviously was 1. A foreigner and 2. mad as
hell that it resembled someone else, and NOT themselves.
<snip>
> That is your choice, Stephen, and you are welcome to believe as you
> wish, but understand this: _most people_ do not see that as "research"
> or scholarship, and as far as I am concerned, I will continue to point
> out what the research and field work says on these topics. That has
> been my point all along: each reader to SCE and other newsgroups can
> then decide what they want to read from what we both submit as
> "evidence." I believe in presenting BOTH sides. Period.
**
**Surely you piggyback on the same sentiment I have already stated, so
now you're agreeing. Fine. But you're lying, you don't believe in
presenting BOTH sides...EVERYONE CAN SEE THIS.
<snip - re: Nubia>
**
**Yes, I already know who conducted the research and study on the
artifacts from Qustul, Nubia. But I'm always puzzled at the assertions
on the one hand: The Nubians were slaves. On the other hand: The Nubians
were the enemies. Yet, the artifacts found in Qustul are said to be from
TRADE, according to some of your resources provided. "Slaves,"
"Enemies," and "Trade" does not fit - you must quit! The Nubians paid
tribute to the King, as well as other surrounding nations under the
control of the Pharaoh, and the stones reveal a rather friendly and
cooperative relationship between the Nubians and the Ancient Egyptians.
<snip - re: Troy Sagillo and his study>
> >> art from his own viewpoint, which is accurately reported, I think.
>**
>**What YOU think doesn't go far these days, not without your so-called
>evidence you have consistently FAILED to provide on the "diversity"
>issue. Your mere "fluff" will not work, anymore.
>
> Words, words, and ad hominem at that. Neither Troy nor I have done
> anything more than point out what the artifact, linguistic, and
> historical sources indicate.
**
**I wish you would only speak for YOURSELF. Quit trying to speak for
everyone else like your "Mother Hubbard" or someone...not unless they're
your kids.
>[Aside: "Kemetians", BTW, equals, to most people in Egyptology,
>"Egyptians." According to the Egyptian language {see Hannig: 883a},the
>term _kmt[i]_ and _rmT n kmt_ translates (into English, that is)as "the
>Egyptians," "people of Kemet [Egypt]." It does not have, to me (or I
>daresay, to Troy, who will state his view, I'm sure), the "loaded"
>meaning you imply, so _I_ don't see Troy as "agreeing" with you].
**
**You DON'T KNOW what Kemetians means to "other people" aside from
yourself! You can't speak for other people on this newsgroup, who do you
think you are? But your definition of the word "Kemetian" translated in
"English" suprises me Katherine. You, of all people, always talk about
not applying "U.S. Standards" to this and that...and here you come
telling me about the word "Kemetian" in English. Guess what? I don't
care.
> I have consistently backed up MY statements with some pretty solid
> research works, I think. You, OTOH, have given me ad hominem attacks,
> and secondary authors' assertions that have not read most of the
> primary works.
**
**And you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what
other authors have read or not! Furthermore, I don't believe you've read
the entire manuscript from POE, either. Yes, I think you're lying.
Anybody can read between chapters, maybe the first chapter, and skip all
the way to the end of the book, but I am reading it from cover to cover.
From my observation, you don't seem "patient" enough to have read the
whole book. Yes Katherine, your very nature has revealed otherwise. You
obviously don't hold his work "worthy" as being scholarship, so of
course you didn't read it, did you???
>FWIW, Troy is a doctoral candidate in Egyptology at the University of
>Toronto, and his Masters work focused on Egyptian art an archaeology in
>ANE cultures of Syria and Palestine. IMO, he is at least as
>well-qualified to talk on the topic as almost anyone in the field, and
>likely a good bit better than Poe in his knowledge of the subject.
> >**
> >**That is YOUR opinion. And what, may I ask, has Troy written and
> >published? I thought so...and you see, that is the point.
>
> I suggest you might want to check on what Troy has done - either from
> himself, or perhaps at a local bookstore. He has been involved in at
> least 2 books on Egyptian art, for example, and quite recently. It is
> possible he's published a good deal more than that as well.
**
**Since YOU seem to be his mouthpiece, why haven't you provided the
'various' books he has authored? You seem to know how he "thinks,"
surely you know what he's already written. You're funny.
> If _you_ wish to give it the weight you
> apparently do, it is a choice on your part. However from an objective
> standpoint, Poe does not meet the classification of "scholar", which
> technically is defined as
>
> scholar: A specialist in a given branch of knowledge. [AHED]
**
**What does [AHED] mean? Furthermore, what does all this "smoke screen"
have to do with the issues I am raising in this forum? As a matter of
fact, Katherine, I have provided "several" references besides POE, why
are you so fixated on Poe??? Try focusing on the issues...
> Regards -
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Member, American Research Center in Egypt
> International Association of Egyptologists
**
**AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
**ameno...@my-deja.com
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X
smiley
amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss what is your answer?
A hint: Rtlcgvnaf jrer nyjnlf Rtlcgvnaf [ROT-13]
--
:-)
smiley
You never cease to amaze me...
Egyptians wer always Egy..... [fill in the blanks]
--
:-)
smiley
amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssss do you get it?
scholar: A specialist in a given branch of knowledge
--
:-)
smiley
> **What does [AHED] mean? Furthermore, what does all this "smoke screen"
> have to do with the issues I am raising in this forum? As a matter of
> fact, Katherine, I have provided "several" references besides POE, why
> are you so fixated on Poe??? Try focusing on the issues...
Try focusing on the issues... (repeat after me)
Egyptians were always Eg.......
--
:-)
smiley
Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In article <7mtrfm$ds1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > > In article <t.sagrillo-18...@x2-pip42.idcomm.com>, Troy
> > > Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >In article <7mrkkd$qcl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > **And the Ancient Egyptians were Kemetians,
> > > >
> > > > yes, that is true.
> > > >
> > > > > otherwise known as Africans
> > > >
> > >well, there were (and are) other Africans besides Egyptians, but yes,
> > >the Egyptians were (and are) from Africa
> > > >
> > > > > and you CANT do a thing about that...
> > > >
> > > > who disagrees with the above?
> > > >
> > > > > they were not ALWAYS Egyptians.
> > > >
> > > > what were they before they were Egyptians??? non-Egyptians?
>
> [Amenophis, in repsonse to Smiley]
> > **You idiot...pay attention. My answer is in the first sentence of my
> > response in which Troy agreed to...Kemetians. (Good grief!)
>
> yes; "Kementian" is a English mishmash of the Egyptian word meaning
> "Egyptian". So yes, I have agreed that Egyptians were (and still are)
> Egyptians. And yes, Egypt is in Africa, so Egyptians are African. This is
> news??? I am still wondering what you meant by "they were not ALWAYS
> Egyptians"
>
> Troy
amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssss answer the question you idiot!
--
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelly <thes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <t.sagrillo-19...@x2-pip34.idcomm.com>, Troy
> Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > [Amenophis, in repsonse to Smiley]
> **You idiot...pay attention. My answer is in the first sentence of my
> response in which Troy agreed to...Kemetians. (Good grief!)
> >
> yes; "Kementian" is a English mishmash of the Egyptian word meaning
> "Egyptian". So yes, I have agreed that Egyptians were (and still are)
> Egyptians. yes, Egypt is in Africa, so Egyptians are African. This is
> news??? I am still wondering what you meant by "they were not ALWAYS
> Egyptians"
> >
> > Troy
**
**Let me set the record in a different direction here - I don't know a
Smiley. Are your referring to "smelly"? Well, I'm ignoring that bitch,
and I mean it in the "female dog" sense of the word, to make myself
clear.
About your comment - do you mean "Kemetian" or Kementian? I've never
heard of the latter. As far as the first word, derived from KMT - I
DON'T CARE what the hell the english version means.
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
"The Ancient Egyptians were the Black people of Africa, known to the
Ancient Greeks as the 'burnt skinned, woolly haired' people..."
- Amenophis X
P.S. You still don't understand what I meant the Ancient Egyptians were
not always Egyptians. How about: They were'nt always "referred to" as
Egyptians. "Egyptians" is not the original names they give themselves.
Surely you know this.
smiley
> P.S. You still don't understand what I meant the Ancient Egyptians were
> not always Egyptians. How about: They were'nt always "referred to" as
> Egyptians. "Egyptians" is not the original names they give themselves.
> Surely you know this.
Repeat after me dense-one:
The Egyptians are and were always EGYPTIAMS
--
:-)
smiley
Sagrillo <t.sag...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> In article <37929636...@news.mindspring.com>, gri...@mindspring.com
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:22:30 GMT, ameno...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > So, let's now examine the assertion that you have made: "...The people
> > who founded Egypt, based upon the evidence found in Qustul, Nubia...were
> > Nubians." For one, I see you did not "..provide any substantial
> > evidence.." on this assertion, and so, let's talk about what research
> > HAS been done on this. It is Bruce Willams' work on Nubian artifacts
> > that is the basis of your assertion, BTW.
> >
> > The Qustul evidence is very tenuous and highly interpreted. Most
> > recently, Josef Wegner in his "Interaction by the Nubian A-Group and
> > Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Burner", _Egypt in
> > Africa_, T. Celenko (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art:Indianapolis,
> > 1996) saw the evidence of the burner as evidence of trade only, saying
> > in his article on Nubia for the University of Pennsylvania's "Searching
> > for Ancient Egypt" exhibit:
> >
> > "...Many items of Egyptian as well as Near Eastern origin were found in
> > the tombs indicating that the A-Group had substantial trade links. The
> > classic A-Group kings also made use of Egyptian-style iconography which
> > suggests they interacted with the development of pre-dynastic kingdoms
> > in late Predynastic Egypt." [_Searching for Ancient Egypt_, David
> > O'Connor and David Silverman [ed.], (Cornell University Press/Dallas
> > Museum of Art, 1997), p. 295.
>
> [snip of chronological problems of Williams' theory of Egyptian pharaonic
> origins at Qustul, Nubia]
>
> even if Williams' chronology was correct (and it appears it is not), it
> would make no difference whatsoever. He dates the burner to Naqqadah IIIa,
> but the evidence from Abydos, Egypt, shows clearly that pharaonic
> iconography, such as that on the burner, was present 1st in Egypt long
> before in the Naqqadah I period. shocking as it might sound to some
> people, Egyptian pharaonic civilization started in <gasp> Egypt.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Troy
amenophixssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss did you read that last
sentence which I quote below:
"Egyptian pharaonic civilization started in <gasp> Egypt."
Don't be that DENSE, accept the FACTS, forget Poe and Diop's horseshit.
--
:-)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smelly <thest...@hotmail.com> barked:
> amenophixsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss wrote:
>
>P.S. You still don't understand what I meant the Ancient Egyptians were
>not always Egyptians. How about: They were'nt always "referred to" as
>Egyptians. "Egyptians" is not the original name they gave themselves.
>Surely you know this.
> Ruff-ruff:
>
> The Egyptians are and were always EGYPTIAMS
**
**
**What a goober. What are "Egyptiams?" (hahahehehehehahah...)
:-))
AMENOPHIS X aka AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
ameno...@my-deja.com
smiley
> P.S. You still don't understand what I meant the Ancient Egyptians were
> not always Egyptians. How about: They were'nt always "referred to" as
> Egyptians. "Egyptians" is not the original names they give themselves.
> Surely you know this.
Repeat after me dense-one:
The Egyptians are and were always EGYPTIANS
There you go you idiot!
--
:-)