I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in EurAsia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.
The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.
The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
The Bushmen/ Khoisan probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
The Anu or Black pygmies (/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon ( Bushmen/ Khoisan ) people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
By the time the Anu entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.
By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.
The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.
This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.
The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.
Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Is there no god damn oversight at your school district?!?!?! This is why Black students are behind their non-black counterparts. What school district do you teach in sir? I would like to write the superintendent.
Yes, there is oversight, we have a school board just like all others, but my district is 97% Minority, so we are effectively the majority. The superintendent is Black and so are all the board members, not that it makes a difference, as we don't all 'agree' on everything simply because we share a common 'race'.
But I would review the contents myself, as we have to present it in such a fashion to show how others will benefit from it, for it to be added to our district curriculum.
posted
Yea and I'm sure stormfront would agree w/you. They'd be just as glad to add their aryan historical view to the curriculum of predominantly white school districts; white Egypt revisited! You the bomb Clyde Winters!!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is clear this Euronut knows nothing about making additions to the school curriculum.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Yea and I'm sure stormfront would agree w/you. They'd be just as glad to add their aryan historical view to the curriculum of predominantly white school districts; white Egypt revisited! You the bomb Clyde Winters!!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is clear this Euronut knows nothing about making additions to the school curriculum.
You don't know anything about Afro-American schools and contemporary American Education. Afrocentrism is a part of many school distric social studies programs. For example in Florida school children are taught that the ancient Egyptians were Black, and the text used in many schools is Asante, the creator of the term Afrocentrism.
And in New Jersey schools, students learn that Egyptian and African people are one:
quote:
Ancient Egypt was the most impressive of the early civilizations. The annual overflowing of the River Nile stimulated along its banks a sedentary way of life noteworthy in at least three respects. First, no early civilization lasted longer than ancient Egypt's five thousand years. Second, no other early civilization is associated with so many achievements (such as writing; the study of astronomy, geometry and geography; a 365-day calendar; irrigation systems; architecture; sculpture; beds and chairs; and wigs). Third, Egypt marked the greatest confluence of early cultures. Situated at the crossroads between Africa, Asia, and Europe, Egyptians had contact with the Mesopotamians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Kushites (Nubians), Greeks, and Romans. There is even evidence to suggest that the ancient Greek civilization, considered the primary basis for European civilization, was influenced considerably by the ancient Egyptians, especially in religion and art. Links between some Africans south of the Sahara and the ancient Egyptians have been identified. The legends of some ethnic groups (for example, Dogon, Yoruba, Bakuba, and Watutsi) speak of a migration from the general direction of the Nile Valley. Also, objects found in other parts of Africa resemble Egyptian ones and are therefore viewed as having originated in Egypt (headrests, musical instruments, ostrich fans). Further, there are words common to the Egyptian language and the languages of such African groups as the Yoruba and Wolof. Yoruba and Wolof words are among those West African words that have been found among the black residents of' the Gullah Islands (Sea Islands) off the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina.
This quote is taken from the : The New Jersey African American History Curriculum Guide: Grades 9 to 12
As you can see although Stormfront's Aryan history may be considered racist, the study of Egypt as an African civilization is a part of many state and local school district's social studies curriculum.
4. Even had the marriage been consumated there's no way Tut's widow could effect the dead man's Y chromosome.
5. R1b1a is older than R1b1b (the non-African variety). Without jumping through hoops, R1b in AE would be the homegrown African variety rather than some imported EurAsian variety.
[/qb]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't be thick Al King Tut. My point is that if the Windows of King Tut wanted an Asiatic husband how do we know that Egyptian royal women weren't having affairs or relationships with Asiatic men in the past?
Consider the story of Joseph. Egyptian women committing adultery - how unusual was that?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are right. It is all over. Tuts father was an Irish man.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Jari, Jesus Christ could come down here in person and try to educate you on AE and you would still spin. You guys are dine...finished. Not that you ever had a position to start with. Willie Nelson wrote a song 'Turn out the lights, the party is over.'
Unless you are religious about this, the possibility of a Celtic ancestor in Tut's male lineage is something to consider. Especially with the evidence of red hair that seems to keep showing up.
Is Tut related to Ramses?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are right. It is all over. Tuts father was an Irish man.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Jari, Jesus Christ could come down here in person and try to educate you on AE and you would still spin. You guys are dine...finished. Not that you ever had a position to start with. Willie Nelson wrote a song 'Turn out the lights, the party is over.'
Unless you are religious about this, the possibility of a Celtic ancestor in Tut's male lineage is something to consider. Especially with the evidence of red hair that seems to keep showing up.
Is Tut related to Ramses?
Lord Jesus help this boy Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Red hair is unique to Celts, Whites, or somebody?
I didn't say it was exclusive to Celts I simply said that it is evidence that increases the possibility.
It is my understanding that some of the Sea People actually became Egyptian mercenaries. Even some of them becoming generals in the Egyptian armies.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As you can see although Stormfront's Aryan history may be considered racist, the study of Egypt as an African civilization is a part of many state and local school district's social studies curriculum.
.
Yes, and our school uses Glencoe/MacMillian a MAJOR national book publisher; and it also publishes the fact that pre-dynastic Egypt was of AFRICAN origins. This is as mainstream as it gets, it ties AE history in with that of Nubia and Ancient Kush, while simultaneouly broadening the scope and giving other African Empires their own section, as it teaches in a chronological order..from Ancient History-Medieval History.
The problem in the past decades with the social studies curriculum, was that focused only on American History. When it realized American students were far less knowledgeable of World History and Geography compared to other developed countries, they realized the curriculum had to be revamped on a Nationwide scale.
You could find 25 year old Americans to this day, that think Africa is a "country" not a "continent", now we're supposed to be an 'advanced' society, yet these 'old school' 19th century train of thought kept us all from progressing, not only African Americans, but ALL Americans, there's no place for racist ideology in our textbooks!
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
4. Even had the marriage been consumated there's no way Tut's widow could effect the dead man's Y chromosome.
5. R1b1a is older than R1b1b (the non-African variety). Without jumping through hoops, R1b in AE would be the homegrown African variety rather than some imported EurAsian variety.
[/QB]
Don't be thick Al King Tut. My point is that if the Windows of King Tut wanted an Asiatic husband how do we know that Egyptian royal women weren't having affairs or relationships with Asiatic men in the past?
Consider the story of Joseph. Egyptian women committing adultery - how unusual was that? [/QB][/QUOTE] You are the king of hypotheticals, I swear. I mean, Hg R1b is quite different from R1b1b2, where R1b1ba is OLDER than its parent R1b1b.
I ask once again, do you know what that may end up infering?
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Red hair is unique to Celts, Whites, or somebody?
I didn't say it was exclusive to Celts I simply said that it is evidence that increases the possibility.
It is my understanding that some of the Sea People actually became Egyptian mercenaries. Even some of them becoming generals in the Egyptian armies.
How so? Where did these "Celts" even came from? I mean, to link the Hittite peoples to the Celt is a rather extreme suggestion. Do you have access to ANY academic literature that proposes that? Who are these Red Sea peoples? Cite sources, and if we're linking that to Celts: I want evidence.
Orion, there's a fine line between providing an educated guess, and practicing sheer idiocy. The haplogroup R1b1ba, being MORE ancient, is found within Africa, along the Nile, and if we assume is non-African, would've arrived well before Egypt appeared. Why do you exclude the possibility that the African-specific variant, which isn't non-existent in Egypt or Sudan?
As for this red hair bullshit. Hair is hardly a reliable indicator. It changes over time. Just observe the ageing process. Hair strands in one person can have various colors as well. Ancient hair samples likely won't remain intact, and the redening phenomena is quite common in Incan mummies, as well, despite being blue black-haired peoples.
Since this hair issue is so important here, I ask a question: does anyone have access to forensic hair analysis regarding Tiye's hair? You know, I am pretty close to assuming that we're just hearing ideas strictly derived from one's posterior.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Hittite and Celts? When did I say that? The Sea People is what I was referring to. The Sea People were a group of people from various places. Now keep in mind that the Greeks enslaved NW Europeans. Some of these slaves gained their freedom and would be inclined to join pirating groups. Pirates in general came from all over. The Celtic world of the past was a lot larger and spanned from Ireland to parts of Germany. Hence the possibility that a pirate from the Sea People confederation entered into military service for the Egyptians, became distinguished for valor, ended up a general and had an affair with an Egyptian royal lady. The result - Red hair in some Egyptians.
FYI: My neice has pure red wavy hair. I have Celtic ancestry some 5 generations back.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the Egyptian royals were Europeans to start with red hair would not have been an unusual feature though not common.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the Egyptian royals were Europeans to start with red hair would not have been an unusual feature though not common.
Yes and the Greeks carried Benin Hbs and so they were Africans..plus they remembered their African heritage..
Throughout the Greek legends, an Africoid or dark-skinned people are associated with Danaus and the Danaids. (The poet) Aeschylus’s, “Suppliant Maidens”, describes the Danides as “Black and smitten by the “sun”. (In the poem) when the Danaids claim an ethnic kinship to Epaphos, son of Zeus, the Argive king Pelops, rebukes them:
posted
The Greks had zero african componet. A marker does not make them part african and even the marker is in only few. Greece had vastly more influence on africa than the other way around.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: The Greks had zero african componet. A marker does not make them part african and even the marker is in only few. Greece had vastly more influence on africa than the other way around.
That's pathetic...
What influence, Ancient Greece and Southeast/Southern Europe in general were greatly influenced by Africa and Southwest Asia.. in fact, historically Greece was associated with the East, i.e. what is now associated with the geopolitical term "Middle East".
You are no different from those loons on Stormfront, you back up views that hold no basis in order to fulfill your own sick theories.
Egypt was African, and that fact is supported by science.
There is no real scientist who claims a European origin for AE, there are a few who still hold on to a Near Eastern origin.. but European.
Several posters have already schooled you on the hair color of the mummies, so there's no point to argue.
Greece and Rome where both influenced by Africa, and there were many Africans living there during Classical periods... watch Spartacus to find out. Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Classical Greek scholars have made a complete joke out of your position.
You cannot post one who agrees with you. You should be locked up to keep you from hurting yourself.
The Greeks influenced africa , not the other way around. Every educated person knows that. Besides, the Egyptians were not black africans anyway. No group of blacks are capable of building a civilization of that magnitude.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: The Greks had zero african componet. A marker does not make them part african and even the marker is in only few. Greece had vastly more influence on africa than the other way around.
Are you really *that* clueless?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spend a few weeks thinking about it nay-Sayer and you might figure it out. There is a reason Greek scholars do not teach that Greece was an african influenced civilization BUT they do teach that Africa was heavily influenced by Greece.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Spend a few weeks thinking about it nay-Sayer and you might figure it out. There is a reason Greek scholars do not teach that Greece was an african influenced civilization BUT they do teach that Africa was heavily influenced by Greece.
Many of those same Greek scholars studied in Egypt.
IIRC, most of the Greek gods are African in origin.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Greek Gods had nothing to do with Egyptian religion...nada. Some greeks did study in Egypt in the late Greek period but keep in mind that Alexandria was a Greek city, not an Egyptian city and was not even built until 300 BC.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Actually Greek Gods had nothing to do with Egyptian religion...nada. Some greeks did study in Egypt in the late Greek period but keep in mind that Alexandria was a Greek city, not an Egyptian city and was not even built until 300 BC.
You are mistaken.
There is a Greek historian, whose name escapes me @ the moment, who even admits that the names of their gods came from Egypt.
The fact that Alexandria was a Greek city is irrelevant. Greek philosophers and other Greek thinkers had gone to Egypt to study long before 300 BC.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nay Sayer, This is what happens to your brain when you pay too much attention to these afronuts. The following is an explanation to your question from Lefkowitz. He point of view is in line with other Greek scholars you will find. Egypt and Greece had little to do with each other before Alexander. It was Greek thought and advancement that influenced Egypt, not the other way around.
Did ancient Greek religion and culture derive from Egypt?
"The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century BC Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries AD also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. They were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture, with elaborate religious customs and impressive monuments. But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture (an enthusiasm that was later revived in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe), they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.
Classical scholars tend to be skeptical about the claims of the Greek historians because much of what these writers say does not conform to the facts as they are now known from the modern scholarship on ancient Egypt. For centuries Europeans had believed that the ancient historians knew that certain Greek religious customs and philosophical interests derived from Egypt. But two major discoveries changed that view. The first concerned a group of ancient philosophical treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; these had throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance been thought of as Egyptian and early. But in 1614 the French scholar Isaac Casaubon demonstrated that the treatises were actually late and basically Greek. The second discovery was the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the official system of Egyptian writing, completed by 1836. Before decipherment, scholars had been compelled to rely on Greek sources for their understanding of Egyptian history and civilization. Once they were able to read real Egyptian texts, and could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity, it became clear to them that the relation of Egyptian to Greek culture was less close than they had imagined. Egyptian belonged to the Afroasiatic language family, while Greek was an Indo-European language, akin to Sanskrit and European languages like Latin.
On the basis of these new discoveries, European scholars realized that they could no longer take at face value what Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Church fathers had to say about Greece's debt to Egypt. Once it was possible to read Egyptian religious documents, and to see how the Egyptians themselves described their gods and told their myths, scholars could see that the ancient Greeks' accounts of Egyptian religion were superficial, and even misleading. Apparently Greek writers, despite their great admiration for Egypt, looked at Egyptian civilization through cultural blinkers that kept them from understanding any practices or customs that were significantly different from their own. The result was a portrait of Egypt that was both astigmatic and deeply Hellenized. Greek writers operated under other handicaps as well. They did not have access to records; there was no defined system of chronology. They could not read Egyptian inscriptions or question a variety of witnesses because they did not know the language. Hence they were compelled to exaggerate the importance of such resemblances as they could see or find.
Did the theory of the transmigration of souls come from Egypt?
Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures. Herodotus thought that Pythagoras learned about the transmigration of souls from Egypt, when in fact the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of souls, as their careful and elaborate burial procedures clearly indicate. Herodotus tells us that he wrote down what the Egyptians told him; but when they spoke, what did he hear? Since he did not know Egyptian, his informants could have been Greeks living in the Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile Delta, or Egyptians who knew some Greek. How well-informed were his informants? On the question of origins, at least, it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.
Did Plato Study in Egypt?
Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt, and there is no reference to such a visit in the semi-biographical Seventh Epistle. But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs. Plato, of course, was not a historian, and the rather superficial knowledge of Egypt displayed in his dialogues, along with vague chronology, is more characteristic of historical fiction than of history. In fact, anecdotes about his visit to Egypt only turn up in writers of the later Hellenistic period. What better way to explain his several references to Egypt than to assume that the author had some first-hand knowledge of the customs he describes? For authors dating from the fourth century and earlier, ancient biographers were compelled to use as their principal source material the author's own works. Later biographers add details to the ...
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Nay Sayer, This is what happens to your brain when you pay too much attention to these afronuts. The following is an explanation to your question from Lefkowitz. He point of view is in line with other Greek scholars you will find. Egypt and Greece had little to do with each other before Alexander. It was Greek thought and advancement that influenced Egypt, not the other way around.
Is that a quote from Lefkowitz' book "Not Out of Africa"? That work has been thoroughly debunked.
Chris Ehret:
quote:Well, Martin Bernal has done fine work. There's really nothing the matter with it. His grandfather was Alan Gardner, a famous and important Egyptologist. He went into other things, but has always been, at heart, an Egyptologist. He knows his Egyptian materials very, very well. And as he started looking at these materials, he became interested in the history of literature dealing with Greek-Egyptian connection. He saw that, as you moved into the 19th century, histories became increasingly distant from what the Greeks themselves said about their Egyptian connections. People imagined that Greece had this wonderful sort of Enlightenment before the Enlightenment. In many senses this wasn't wrong; the Greeks really had tremendous breakthroughs in thinking. But they didn't come up with all of this in isolation. We can't ignore, for instance, Euclid saying that he stayed in Egypt and, after he returned, wrote the Geometry.
A whole bunch of people in the Classics departments have made their careers - and they deeply feel this - the wonder of the Ancient Greeks. They get great joy and happiness from doing this. If you make any connection between Africa and what the Greeks were doing, our Western upbringing can come back to surface in a way people don't realize is taking place.
They don't realize it because they feel they have eliminated racism from their thinking. They're sure that Africans, given different circumstances, would have been just as advanced as everyone else. They don't realize that, actually, Africans were just as advanced. They have, maybe, more continent to move into; they have less dense population and only some areas move into urbanization. Societies develop more oral literature, so they don't have the written documentation—people choose alternative modes to develop their history. And then there's the thought of Egypt was this place that got great but then just stopped, stagnated. And that's not a correct reading of history either. The New Kingdom was doing things that were far different from the Old and Middle periods. Now, beyond the New Kingdom, nobody pays much attention. I want to fix up Civilizations of Africa to go into 7th century Egypt. There are important things, new things, happening there.
Anyway: the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. I don't think it does at all. After all, human societies invent new patterns through encounter with other societies. What Greeks achieved is all the richer if we understand that they were grappling with ideas from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere.
And then you have a very different reaction from Afrocentrists. Some Afrocentrists are really out there, far beyond left field. Martin and I don't mind that they use our work, as long as they are grounded in the evidence. But Classicists say, well, Bernal is just an Afrocentrist. And he isn't. He's someone who's got real evidence, and who's got a valid critique of European scholarly understanding of Greece over the last century and a half or so. Of course, some of the people he criticizes are among the founding fathers of Classics.
But, yeah, it does look like the Middle Kingdom did have a big impact on the Mediterranean. Maybe there wasn't a circum-Aegean conquest from Egypt, but there was a cultural impact that was later remembered. I think basically Martin has really enriched things.
Now, as for the linguistic materials: some Greek words are going to turn out to be early borrowings. I want to get together with Martin on this issue. There are definitely word borrowings from Egypt into Greece, and there's certainly a lot vocabulary that comes from ancient Semitic languages.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Since the Egyptian royals were Europeans to start with red hair would not have been an unusual feature though not common.
Why would you think that Egyptian royals were European? That is very odd indeed. A few European individuals usurping the throne perhaps but your claim is obtuse. You sound like one of those Aryan nation nut cases.
Why don't you start a thread about Egyptian European Royalty. It would be interesting.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ Hittite and Celts? When did I say that? The Sea People is what I was referring to. The Sea People were a group of people from various places. Now keep in mind that the Greeks enslaved NW Europeans. Some of these slaves gained their freedom and would be inclined to join pirating groups. Pirates in general came from all over. The Celtic world of the past was a lot larger and spanned from Ireland to parts of Germany. Hence the possibility that a pirate from the Sea People confederation entered into military service for the Egyptians, became distinguished for valor, ended up a general and had an affair with an Egyptian royal lady. The result - Red hair in some Egyptians.
FYI: My neice has pure red wavy hair. I have Celtic ancestry some 5 generations back.
Greeks did enslave NW Europeans, but that sounds rather exceptional. There was a HUGE population base of R1b in Africa. You know, once Africa's population expands, the quantity of R1b will naturally amplify in that region.
Hammer is a clown.
That red hair claim isn't even backed by actual hair analysis. It means nothing, because we have no evidence that it cannot develop amongst Africans, or that the population is sister to Europeans and thus lacks the genetic base to develop such a trait. It's such a superficial trait, but you get my point
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nay-Sayer, Nonsense, Ehret is not a classical scholar and the subject we are talking about is in THEIR field, not his. If the book has been discredited then by whom? You cannot find a single classical scholar who agrees with you, not one, anywhere. You are too literate to buy into this garbble.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Nay-Sayer, Nonsense, Ehret is not a classical scholar and the subject we are talking about is in THEIR field, not his. If the book has been discredited then by whom? You cannot find a single classical scholar who agrees with you, not one, anywhere. You are too literate to buy into this garbble.
Ehret is a linguist as well as a professor of African History. He is WELL qualified to speak on the subject @ hand.
If you wish to discredit my source, you must do a lot better than just accusing him of not being a "Classical Scholar". That's not going to cut it here...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nay Sayer, this is why people think you guys are nuts. Ehert is not a classical scholar...now read very slowly...the question is WHAT DID THE GREEKS SAY AND NOT SAY AND WAS IT ACCURATE? Now do we understand the question? that is a question smack in the field of classical scholars...period.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the hell do you guys always start talking about Greeks?
Who cares about Greeks?
The Black elements that were Greek long ago were mixed into the European to the point that their Blackness is not really worth mentioning.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no blackness in Greece. When you say things like that you play into the sterotypes that black people cannot think.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no whiteness in Kemet. When you say things like that you play into the stereotypes that rednecks cannot think.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: There was no blackness in Greece. When you say things like that you play into the sterotypes that black people cannot think.
But who cares about Greece?
To me this is Greek - pretty darn White:
Where as this is Egypt:
Pretty darn Black.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just Black. Nothing European about Egypt except for a few individuals.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Notice how Miss Egypt features look identical to those of the bust above?
Not European.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada, What you call rednecks are the majority of the American population and literally run the country. The DNA tests on Tut wiped out your position.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: The Greks had zero african componet. A marker does not make them part african and even the marker is in only few. Greece had vastly more influence on africa than the other way around.
Although Lefkowitz teaches classical studies her research methods leave a lot to be desired. She declares in Not Out of Africa that , "there is no archaeological data to support the notion that Egyptians migrated to Greece during the second millennium B.C. (or before that)" .
This statement is untrue. There is an abundance of evidence that the Egyptians had long settled many parts of ancient Greece.
Cecil Torr in Memphis and Mycenae , discussed the inscriptions of Amemhotep found in a Mycenaean tomb at Ialysos in Rhodes and an 18th Dynasty scarab dating to the same period. As a result of the discovery of these artifacts Torr speculated that there were relations between Egypt and Greece between 1271 and 850 B.C.
The discovery of Torr was only the tip of the iceberg. Since the discovery of these artifacts in the 19th Century, archaeological evidence of Egyptians in Greece during the 2nd millennium has also been reported by J.D.S. Pendlebury, William A. Ward, and S.W. Manning .
Pendlebury provides a detailed discussion of the Egyptian material found at Laconia, Argolid, Thebes in Boeotia, and Athens. Pendlebury like Torr, believes that there were close relations between Greece and Egypt between the 12th and 7th centuries B.C.
Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca, has been excellently followed up by N. J. Skon Jedele, in her recent dissertation on Egyptian artifacts found in Greece. This dissertation provides even more examples of Egyptian artifacts found in Greece than those recorded by Pendlebury over sixty years ago.
Manning gives a well balanced discussion of the Egyptian material found in the Aegean area dating between the Old Kingdom and Dynasties 10 and ll. The work of Hankey and Warren indicate that there is archaeological evidence for Egyptians in ancient Greece, contrary to the false claims of Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa.
End Notes
1. Lefkowitz, Not out of Africa, p.157.
2.Cecil Torr, Memphis and Mycenae, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1896) p.61.
3.Ibid., pp.64-65.
4. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptica: A catalogue of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1930.
5. William W. Ward, Egypt and the Mediterranean World 2200- 1900 B.C., Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1971.
6. S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an abundance of evidence that the Egyptians had long settled many parts of ancient Greece.
In the ancient writings of the Greeks, the Egyptians were called Melampodes or "blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history.
The Egyptians established many colonies in ancient Europe. The Egyptians called themselves Melampodes or "Blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history. According to Hyainus in Fabula, and Apollonius Rhodius when the Danaans came to Greece they were a combination of diverse African tribes.
When the Danaans came to Greece they took away part of Argolis from the Canaanites. The Danaans took the Mysteries of Themoporia and the oracle of Dodona to Greece. This view is supported by the discovery of an inscribed stone in the Peloponnese that had Egyptian writing on it dating to the Vth Dynasty of Egypt. Greek traditions speak of Egyptian colonies founded by Cecrops who settled Atica, Danaus the brother of Aegyptus was the founder of Argolis. Danaus is alleged to have taught the Greeks agriculture and metallurgy.
This short review of the Classical literature relating to the African identity of the Egyptians suggest that the views held by Lefkowitz in relation to an Egyptian presence in Egypt may not be correct.Numerous archaeologist have found abundant evidence of Egyptians settled in Greece long before the coming of the Indo-European-Aryans to Anatolia.
Cecil Torr in Memphis and Mycenae , discussed the inscriptions of Amemhotep found in a Mycenaean tomb at Ialysos in Rhodes and an 18th Dynasty scarab dating to the same period. As a result of the discovery of these artifacts Torr speculated that there were relations between Egypt and Greece between 1271 and 850 B.C.
The discovery of Torr was only the tip of the iceberg. Since the discovery of these artifacts in the 19th Century, archaeological evidence of Egyptians in Greece during the 2nd millennium has also been reported by J.D.S. Pendlebury, William A. Ward, and S.W. Manning .
Pendlebury provides a detailed discussion of the Egyptian material found at Laconia, Argolid, Thebes in Boeotia, and Athens. Pendlebury like Torr, believes that there were close relations between Greece and Egypt between the 12th and 7th centuries B.C.
Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca, has been excellently followed up by N. J. Skon Jedele, in her recent dissertation on Egyptian artifacts found in Greece. This dissertation provides even more examples of Egyptian artifacts found in Greece than those recorded by Pendlebury over sixty years ago.
Manning gives a well balanced discussion of the Egyptian material found in the Aegean area dating between the Old Kingdom and Dynasties 10 and ll. The work of Hankey and Warren indicate that there is archaeological evidence for Egyptians in ancient Greece, contrary to the false claims of Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa.
End Notes
1. Lefkowitz, Not out of Africa, p.157.
2.Cecil Torr, Memphis and Mycenae, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1896) p.61.
3.Ibid., pp.64-65.
4. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptica: A catalogue of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1930.
5. William W. Ward, Egypt and the Mediterranean World 2200- 1900 B.C., Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1971.
6. S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Classical Greek scholars have made a complete joke out of your position.
You cannot post one who agrees with you. You should be locked up to keep you from hurting yourself.
The Greeks influenced africa , not the other way around. Every educated person knows that. Besides, the Egyptians were not black africans anyway. No group of blacks are capable of building a civilization of that magnitude.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Nay Sayer, This is what happens to your brain when you pay too much attention to these afronuts. The following is an explanation to your question from Lefkowitz. He point of view is in line with other Greek scholars you will find. Egypt and Greece had little to do with each other before Alexander. It was Greek thought and advancement that influenced Egypt, not the other way around.
Did ancient Greek religion and culture derive from Egypt?
"The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century BC Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries AD also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. They were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture, with elaborate religious customs and impressive monuments. But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture (an enthusiasm that was later revived in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe), they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.
Classical scholars tend to be skeptical about the claims of the Greek historians because much of what these writers say does not conform to the facts as they are now known from the modern scholarship on ancient Egypt. For centuries Europeans had believed that the ancient historians knew that certain Greek religious customs and philosophical interests derived from Egypt. But two major discoveries changed that view. The first concerned a group of ancient philosophical treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; these had throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance been thought of as Egyptian and early. But in 1614 the French scholar Isaac Casaubon demonstrated that the treatises were actually late and basically Greek. The second discovery was the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the official system of Egyptian writing, completed by 1836. Before decipherment, scholars had been compelled to rely on Greek sources for their understanding of Egyptian history and civilization. Once they were able to read real Egyptian texts, and could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity, it became clear to them that the relation of Egyptian to Greek culture was less close than they had imagined. Egyptian belonged to the Afroasiatic language family, while Greek was an Indo-European language, akin to Sanskrit and European languages like Latin.
On the basis of these new discoveries, European scholars realized that they could no longer take at face value what Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Church fathers had to say about Greece's debt to Egypt. Once it was possible to read Egyptian religious documents, and to see how the Egyptians themselves described their gods and told their myths, scholars could see that the ancient Greeks' accounts of Egyptian religion were superficial, and even misleading. Apparently Greek writers, despite their great admiration for Egypt, looked at Egyptian civilization through cultural blinkers that kept them from understanding any practices or customs that were significantly different from their own. The result was a portrait of Egypt that was both astigmatic and deeply Hellenized. Greek writers operated under other handicaps as well. They did not have access to records; there was no defined system of chronology. They could not read Egyptian inscriptions or question a variety of witnesses because they did not know the language. Hence they were compelled to exaggerate the importance of such resemblances as they could see or find.
Did the theory of the transmigration of souls come from Egypt?
Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures. Herodotus thought that Pythagoras learned about the transmigration of souls from Egypt, when in fact the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of souls, as their careful and elaborate burial procedures clearly indicate. Herodotus tells us that he wrote down what the Egyptians told him; but when they spoke, what did he hear? Since he did not know Egyptian, his informants could have been Greeks living in the Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile Delta, or Egyptians who knew some Greek. How well-informed were his informants? On the question of origins, at least, it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.
Did Plato Study in Egypt?
Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt, and there is no reference to such a visit in the semi-biographical Seventh Epistle. But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs. Plato, of course, was not a historian, and the rather superficial knowledge of Egypt displayed in his dialogues, along with vague chronology, is more characteristic of historical fiction than of history. In fact, anecdotes about his visit to Egypt only turn up in writers of the later Hellenistic period. What better way to explain his several references to Egypt than to assume that the author had some first-hand knowledge of the customs he describes? For authors dating from the fourth century and earlier, ancient biographers were compelled to use as their principal source material the author's own works. Later biographers add details to the ...
posted
Why even bother to have a serious discussion with Hammer? If you have to do, just toy with him, just like he is obviously doing with all of you.
How Hammers mind works:
1.E3b in Greeks = non existent despite various studies that reveal it.
Yet (When it is convenient for his standpoint)
2.R1b is not only existent in Tut according to him, but representative for all of Egypt despite it being little more than a rumor.
1.Proof for E3b in Greeks requires multiple greek historians (Wtf?!!) for it to be true, and anthropologists (that historians themselves take knowledge from) are not qualified.
yet (When it is convenient for his standpoint)
2.Rumors for R1b in Tut requires a simple, non-substatiated rumor started by people on a random forums to be true.
^Can't you see his is toying with you? Stop acting like you're talking to a normal person that can actually absorb logic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
R1b is not a rumor, you are in denial ust as I predicted you would be. Logic? You guys are a laughing stock everywhere. 1. Only 23% of Greeks have the marker 2. 20 people could spread that marker to 23% of the greek population.
I know you guys have math issues, we see the test scores but this is not rocket science. Again goofey...having the marker does not mean anything. It does not make them black and does not mean they were ever black.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a matter of logic my friend. 1 +1 is 2. This is why you people bring up the rear in every catagory of human activity. In your defense I actually think you believe this goofey ideology.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Nay Sayer, this is why people think you guys are nuts. Ehert is not a classical scholar...now read very slowly...the question is WHAT DID THE GREEKS SAY AND NOT SAY AND WAS IT ACCURATE? Now do we understand the question? that is a question smack in the field of classical scholars...period.
Which "Classical Scholars"?
Please name some.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic